Mayor Uses Courts to Silence Critical Media in Mexico

Quintana Roo, Mexico — If confirmed, the reported issuance of protective measures by the Quintana Roo State Attorney General’s Office (FGE) in favor of Isla Mujeres Mayor Atenea Gómez Ricalde—allegedly to “protect” her from two critical media outlets, Poder y Critica and Información S/Limite Quintana Roo—would mark a dangerous distortion of justice. What appears to be an action for the “defense of women’s rights” is, in reality, an act of judicial intimidation against the press.

A Distortion of Justice

Unofficial reports indicate that case file FEMDE/06/2/2025 was handled by the Special Prosecutor’s Office for Electoral Crimes, resulting in restrictive orders preventing journalists from “harassing or intimidating” the mayor. In effect, this attempts to penalize media work under the subjective and dangerous argument of “hostile attitudes.” When political power defines what discomforts it and criminalizes that discomfort, censorship ceases to be a risk—it becomes state policy.

Failed Attempts at Electoral Intervention

Mayor Gómez had previously sought, without success, precautionary measures from the Quintana Roo Electoral Institute (IEQROO) and the Electoral Court (TEQROO) for alleged gender-based political violence. Both institutions refused, finding no violations of the law in the media’s publications. The case then took a penal route, with the Attorney General’s Office under Raciel López Salazar seemingly granting what electoral authorities denied: silence purchased with the weight of the state.

As a public official, Gómez must be accountable—not shielded by criminal complaints. The concept of gender-based political violence is serious, urgent, and legitimate. But when used as a barrier to stifle criticism or disguise irritation as persecution, what weakens is not just journalism—it is the rule of law.

A Troubling Precedent

This is not an isolated case. The situation in Isla Mujeres echoes the pattern set by Campeche Governor Layda Sansores, who has weaponized the justice system against dissenting voices. Under the guise of combating “hate campaigns,” Sansores has targeted journalists and opposition figures who simply do their job: questioning power, scrutinizing public spending, and exposing wrongdoing.

The Quintana Roo Attorney General’s Office appears to be aligning with this model. What comes next? Protective measures to prevent journalists from mentioning an irritated mayor? Court orders to censor uncomfortable columns? Preventive detention for those investigating public contracts?

The Role of Journalism in Democracy

This raises urgent ethical questions: What is the journalist’s role in a democracy? To applaud power or to monitor it? Since when is demanding accountability from public officials a crime? Who protects the press when the state itself becomes the aggressor?

If there is genuine harassment, it should be sanctioned. But if the criticism is legitimate, it must be respected. In a democracy, power holds no moral immunity from the press.

A Call for Priorities

If the Attorney General’s Office under Raciel López Salazar is so certain of its path, it should start with the real numbers: How many femicides have been resolved in 2025? How many sexual aggressors have been detained? How many cases of domestic violence have been pursued to the fullest extent? Or is it easier to protect a mayor complaining about critical columns than to confront the crime killing women every day?

A Clear and Brutal Message

The message is unmistakable: Criticize power, and you may face legal action. Do so from a local outlet, and you risk censorship. And if the Attorney General’s Office joins the game, it is no longer justice—it is institutional submission.

In Quintana Roo, the press is not the enemy. But it seems power has already decided to treat it as one.