In the last two weeks, the legislative process to issue the General Law to Prevent, Investigate and Punish Crimes Related to Extortion has generated a lot of excitement. The initiative set off alarm bells especially among the media because the ruling includes an aggravating circumstance, in section V of article 17 of the new law, which increases prison sentences when “devices, media, services or platforms are used through which the emission, transmission or reception of signs, signals, writings, images, voice, data, sounds or information of any nature that is carried out through wires, radioelectricity, optical, physical means, electromagnetic systems can be carried out. or any other electronic means.”
The scope with which this section was written makes it evident that its editors had an active interest in ensuring that not a single means of communication escaped them.
With this legal text, not only do television, radio and all applications, platforms, social networks and Internet pages come in, but they also include newspapers, magazines, books, Morse code and even smoke signals. Strictly speaking, not even post-its save it.
The problem is not limited to this aggravating circumstance, which has no justification, but extends to the very definition of the crime of “extortion,” which is even broader. According to the minutes published in the Gazette of the Chamber of Deputies on November 25, 2025, article 15 of the new law considers an extortionist to be anyone who “without right, forces another to give, do, stop doing or tolerate something, obtaining a benefit or profit for himself or another or causing someone patrimonial, moral, physical or psychological damage or harm.” If we consider all the times that the word “or” is used as a disjunctive conjunction, then we have that anyone who forces another to tolerate something, who causes psychological harm to someone, is extorting. If an influencer criticizes a soft drink brand, and one of his followers feels anxious when reading the publication, the influencer will go to jail. Let’s not even talk about political criticism.
Beyond the risks of censorship in the opinion, which have already been publicly and repeatedly warned, what truly draws attention is the illogical disproportion with which Morena “addresses” the main crimes that afflict Mexican society. When it comes to drug trafficking, the policy is “hugs, not bullets” and the strategy is to “address the causes,” but when it comes to “violence” in a demonstration against insecurity, the response is the use of public force and the arrests of protesters to prosecute them for “attempted homicide.” The State is more efficient in arresting protesters for attempted murder than it is arresting drug traffickers for the murders they commit daily.
Another contrast can be seen in the rigor with which tax crimes are now punished. When it is presumed that a taxpayer has committed something, the law provides for preventive detention, blocking of bank accounts and restricting access to suspension of protection, even if the crime has not been proven. And now, soon any uncomfortable publication on a digital platform could be extortion and punishable by prison without the use of violence, threats or intimidation having to be proven. Why are there hugs for drug traffickers, and arrests for protesters? Why are we not “addressing the causes” of a march, or “extortion” on the Internet? I suppose that addressing the causes of the alleged tax evasion is already too much to ask.
The asymmetry in the policies and regulation of crimes in Mexico are a reflection of the priorities of the Government in power. I wish legislators would begin to pay more attention to this when reviewing and voting on initiatives.
