Case Summary and Outcome

The Constitutional Court of Ecuador held that the disciplinary proceedings and subsequent sanctions imposed on a 14-year-old student for creating an Instagram account with memes about his educational institution violated his right to freedom of expression. The case was brought by the student’s father after La Condamine school initiated disciplinary proceedings against the minor for allegedly publishing defamatory and disrespectful posts about the school staff. The District Conflict Resolution Board of the Ministry of Education gave the student a 30-day suspension. The student’s father argued that the memes were humorous and satirical, reflecting the student’s right to express critical opinions about his school. The Ministry of Education, the Undersecretary, and the District Conflict Resolution Board argued the memes constituted a serious offense under education law and that the sanction was lawful and proportionate. The Court concluded that the student’s satirical posts were protected by freedom of expression and underscored the importance of upholding this right within educational communities. It also stressed that the sanction created a chilling effect, discouraging other students from expressing their opinions.

---

Facts

The plaintiff of this case was Santiago Rodolfo Almeida Hidalgo, acting as the legal representative of his son, R.S.A.E., a 14-year-old student, who attended the private school Unidad Educativa La Condamine in Quito, Ecuador. The defendants were La Condamine school, the Ministry of Education, the Undersecretary of Education, and the District Conflict Resolution Board.

In October 2019, La Condamine school discovered an Instagram account called “la_condamine_19,” created by R.S.A.E. and two classmates. The account contained memes about the institution, its teachers, and administrative staff. According to the school, the memes were offensive and undermined the dignity of its teachers. This prompted the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against R.S.A.E., based on the Organic Law on Intercultural Education (LOEI) and its regulations, specifically the alleged violation of Article 134 of the LOEI.

On November 11, 2019, the Disciplinary Council of La Condamine recommended the permanent expulsion of the student, arguing that he had committed a serious offense and referred the case to the District Conflict Resolution Board of the Ministry of Education for educational disciplinary action. On November 29, 2019, the District Board imposed a 30-day suspension from school attendance against R.S.A.E. and ordered other targeted educational measures. The appeal filed against this decision was denied by the Undersecretary of Education.

On December 23, 2019, the plaintiff filed a constitutional protection action (acción de protección) requesting injunctive relief against the educational institution and the District Board. According to the plaintiff, R.S.A.E.’s rights to the best interests of the child, due process, defense, and freedom of expression had been violated as a result of the sanctions imposed. A public hearing was held on January 4, 2020, before the Pichincha Traffic Judicial Unit (Unidad Judicial de Tránsito de Pichincha), which denied the action, considering that the school acted according to the law and respected due process. The plaintiff filed an appeal against this decision. On May 12, 2020, the Criminal Chamber of the Provincial Court of Justice of Pichincha (Sala Penal of the Corte Provincial de Justicia de Pichincha) upheld the lower’s court ruling.

On June 3, 2020, the Criminal Chamber of the Provincial Court of Justice of Pichincha referred the case to the Constitutional Court of Ecuador. On December 22, 2020, the Selection Chamber of the Constitutional Court selected the case for review. On May 11, 2021, a public hearing was held before the Constitutional Court in the context of this proceeding.

Simultaneously, on June 12, 2020, the plaintiff filed an extraordinary protection action (acción de protección extraordinaria) against the ruling of May 12, 2020. However, in February 2021, the Admissions Chamber of the Constitutional Court dismissed the extraordinary action on procedural grounds.

---

Decision Overview

Justice Hernán Salgado Pesantes delivered the judgment for the Constitutional Court of Ecuador. Given the nature of the case, the Constitutional Court addressed violations of multiple constitutional rights, including the right to due process and to effective judicial protection. The analysis below focuses on issues concerning freedom of expression in educational contexts and social media. The main issue before the Court regarding the aforementioned right was whether the disciplinary sanctions imposed on a student for publishing satirical memes about his school on Instagram violated his constitutional right to freedom of expression.

R.S.A.E.’s father argued that the student’s freedom of expression had been unduly restricted, as the memes posted on the Instagram account were satirical and humorous, and formed part of the adolescent’s right to express his critical opinion about his school. He claimed that the sanctions imposed on R.S.A.E. were disproportionate and that the judges who heard the constitutional protection action failed to apply a three-part test.

The Ministry of Education, the Undersecretary of Education, and the District Conflict Resolution Board argued that the memes shared by R.S.A.E. constituted a very serious offense under the LOEI and its regulations, and that the disciplinary sanction was proportionate and lawful. Although it did not specifically address the alleged violation of the student’s right to freedom of expression, it maintained that no constitutional rights had been breached.

The Constitutional Court began its analysis by examining whether the student’s right to due process had been violated. It held that throughout the administrative disciplinary procedure, R.S.A.E. had not been properly heard, nor was his opinion seriously considered. The Court also determined that the student had been compelled to self-incriminate. It noted that the proceeding was focused on reproaching the student rather than establishing his responsibility in the case.

Then, the Court turned to the analysis of the right to freedom of expression. It emphasized the fundamental role of this right in democratic societies and its dual dimension: individual and collective. While acknowledging that freedom of expression is not absolute, the Court reiterated that any restriction must: (i) be provided by law, (ii) pursue a legitimate aim, and (iii) be suitable, necessary, and strictly proportional.

The Court stressed the importance of freedom of expression in digital environments. It highlighted that the internet should be decentralized, open, and neutral, and that regulations must respect these characteristics and enhance its democratizing potential. Additionally, the Court noted that the internet and social media are crucial for children and adolescents to participate in democratic societies. Following this reasoning, the Court explicitly recognized Instagram as a space for the exercise of freedom of expression and held that memes are a protected form of digital speech.

The Court then underscored the State’s obligations to protect freedom of expression online, relying on the Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and the Internet (2011) and the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child’s General Comment No. 25 on children’s rights in the digital environment (2021). In this regard, the Court indicated that States must raise awareness about the proper use and benefits of the internet for children and adolescents. It recalled the obligation to “protect children against cyberattacks and threats, censorship, data leaks, and digital surveillance.” [para. 95-96] It also noted that States must guarantee non-discriminatory access and pluralism in the digital space

The Court established that restrictions on freedom of expression in the digital space must be evaluated “not only from the point of view of the individuals directly affected by the measure,” but also from a digital systemic perspective, i.e., “the perspective of its impact on the functioning of the network.” [para. 99]

Upon applying the three-part test, the Constitutional Court considered that R.S.A.E.’s expressions took place within an educational context or space. It emphasized the fundamental role of freedom of expression in educational communities, highlighting that this right enables students to express, share, and exchange ideas and opinions about life within the institution. The Court also distinguished between expressions exercised “within the classroom” and  “outside of school,” such as on social media, affirming that the latter warranted a different threshold of tolerance. [para. 108] It stated that freedom of expression takes on a broad scope in the educational sphere. Accordingly, educational institutions must refrain from taking measures that lead to censorship or self-censorship among students, especially considering “the implications that may arise from the existing relationship of subordination with teachers.” [para. 110]

Regarding the legality part of the test, the Court noted that, although the sanction imposed on R.S.A.E. was based on Article 134 of the LOEI, none of the offenses contemplated in that norm specifically addressed expressions made on social media platforms. Thus, the legal basis for the restriction was insufficient to justify the restriction on R.S.A.E.’s freedom of expression.

When analyzing the legitimate aim of the restrictive measure imposed against the student—and based on the ruling of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the case of Álvarez Ramos v. Venezuela—, the Court held that the right to freedom of expression protects expressions that “shock, irritate, or disturb.” [para. 132] It acknowledged the school’s interest in preserving the honor and reputation of its staff but noted that the publication of memes on social media is a form of expression that is presumed to be protected by the aforementioned right. Accordingly, the Court noted that the memes shared by R.S.A.E. did not constitute hate speech or any form of expression prohibited by law or harmful to the rights of others. Therefore, they were protected under the right to freedom of expression.

Moreover, the Court considered that the disciplinary process against the student did not pursue the objective of determining whether the posts made by R.S.A.E. had caused harm to the honor or reputation of members of the educational community, nor of achieving reconciliation between the parties involved. On the contrary, both the proceedings before the Disciplinary Council of La Condamine and the District Conflict Resolution Board were focused on questioning R.S.A.E.’s conduct, rather than assessing any potential harm resulting from that conduct or seeking restorative justice.

Subsequently, the Court said the sanction was unnecessary, as less harmful alternatives existed, such as educational workshops on responsible use of social media.

Finally, the Court considered that the sanction was disproportionate, as the restriction imposed on the student’s freedom of expression outweighed any merely “abstract” interest pursued by the school—namely, the alleged and unproven harm to the honor and reputation of some members of its staff. It warned of the “chilling effect” and “self-censorship” that the sanction could generate among other students, who might refrain from expressing critical opinions out of fear of reprisals, particularly given their subordinate position in relation to educational authorities. The Court also noted that the recommendation for permanent separation, issued by the Disciplinary Council of La Condamine, could have caused distress and concern for R.S.A.E. until the District Conflict Resolution Board adopted the final decision of temporary suspension.

Based on this analysis, the Court concluded that the publication of memes on Instagram was a legitimate exercise of R.S.A.E.’s right to freedom of expression. Accordingly, it determined that the educational institution and the District Conflict Resolution Board of the Ministry of Education violated that right to the detriment of R.S.A.E. by sanctioning him for his publications on social media.

The Court also found a violation of the right to effective judicial protection, as neither the lower court nor the appellate court adequately considered the rights to due process or freedom of expression in their judgments. They also failed to apply a proportionality analysis of the sanction imposed or assess the content of the student’s expression.

Thus, the Court ordered measures of satisfaction and non-repetition, including: (i) a public apology by the school and the District Conflict Resolution Board; (ii) the amendment of the school’s Code of Conduct in line with constitutional standards on due process; (iii) the issuance of a protocol by the Ministry of Education on the responsible use of the internet and social media by children and adolescents, and (iv) the issuance of a general guideline by the Ministry of Education to educational institutions so that they can adapt their disciplinary processes from a restorative justice perspective.

Concurring Opinion:

Justice Ramiro Ávila Santamaría issued a concurring opinion. He emphasized that educational authorities, due to their position of power, must be especially tolerant of criticism from students. He distinguished between “student-to-student” expression, where limits may apply to prevent bullying, and expressions directed at authorities, which deserve greater protection. He also underscored the inquisitorial and intimidating nature of the disciplinary process carried out by the school against R.S.A.E., which aimed to punish rather than repair.

Dissenting Opinion:

Justice Carmen Corral Ponce issued a dissenting opinion. She asserted that discipline is essential in educational environments and that institutions have the prerogative to correct student misbehavior. In her view, R.S.A.E.’s right to freedom of expression was limited by the rights and reputations of others, particularly within a school community. She maintained that mocking or offensive expressions toward teachers warranted disciplinary action and that students must learn to be responsible for their actions as part of their moral education.

---