SAO PAULO: A Brazilian Supreme Court judge on Friday ordered the suspension of Elon Musk’s social media giant X in Brazil after the tech billionaire refused to appoint a legal representative in the country, according to a copy of his decision.
The move further escalates a months-long dispute between the two men over free speech, far-right narratives and disinformation.
Judge Alexandre de Moraes had warned Musk on Wednesday evening that X could be blocked in Brazil if it did not comply with his order to appoint a representative, and set a 24-hour deadline. The company has not had a representative in the country since earlier this month.
“Elon Musk has demonstrated his total lack of respect for Brazilian sovereignty and, in particular, for the judiciary, setting himself up as a true supranational entity immune to the laws of each country,” wrote de Moraes in his decision.
The judge said the platform will remain suspended until it complies with his orders and also set a daily fine of 50,000 reais ($8,900) for individuals or companies that use VPNs to access it.
In a subsequent ruling, it retracted its initial decision to set a five-day deadline for internet service providers themselves (and not just the telecoms regulator) to block access to X, as well as its directive for app stores to remove virtual private networks, or VPNs.
Brazil’s telecoms regulator Anatel has 24 hours to comply. The regulator’s president, Carlos Baigorri, told GloboNews that the country’s major service providers would respond quickly, but added that smaller ones might need more time to suspend X from their services.
Brazil’s Supreme Court is expected to rule on the case, but no date has been set for deliberations.
Brazil is a major market for X, which has struggled with the loss of advertisers since Musk bought the former Twitter in 2022. Market research group Emarketer says some 40 million Brazilians, roughly a fifth of the population, access X at least once a month.
X had posted on its official Global Government Affairs page on Thursday night that it hoped de Moraes would shut down X, “simply because we would not comply with his illegal orders to censor his political opponents.”
“When we attempted to defend ourselves in court, Judge Moraes threatened our Brazilian legal representative with prison. Even after she resigned, he froze all her bank accounts,” the company wrote. “Our challenges against his manifestly illegal actions were dismissed or ignored. Judge Moraes’ colleagues at the Supreme Court are unwilling or unable to stand up to him.”
X has clashed with De Moraes over his reluctance to comply with orders to block users.
Among the accounts the platform has previously closed on Brazilian orders are those of lawmakers affiliated with former President Jair Bolsonaro’s right-wing party and activists accused of undermining Brazilian democracy. X’s lawyers submitted a document to the Supreme Court in April saying it had suspended or blocked 226 users since 2019.
In his decision Friday, de Moraes cited Musk’s statements as evidence that X’s conduct “clearly seeks to continue encouraging publications containing extremism, hate speech and anti-democratic speech, and to seek to remove them from jurisdictional control.”
Musk, who calls himself a “free speech absolutist,” has repeatedly claimed the judge’s actions amount to censorship, and his argument has been echoed by Brazil’s political right. He has often insulted De Moraes on his platform, characterizing him as a dictator and a tyrant.
De Moraes’ defenders have said his actions against X were legal, supported by a majority of the court’s members and served to protect democracy at a time when it is in jeopardy. On Friday, he wrote that his ruling is based on Brazilian law requiring internet service companies to have representation in the country so they can be notified when there are relevant court decisions and take necessary measures, which specifies the removal of illicit content posted by users and a wave of disinformation anticipated during municipal elections in October.
The impending closure is not unprecedented in Brazil.
In 2015 and 2016, several Brazilian judges shut down WhatsApp, the country’s most widely used messaging app, because the company refused to comply with police requests for user data. In 2022, De Moraes threatened the messaging app Telegram with a nationwide shutdown, arguing that it had repeatedly ignored Brazilian authorities’ requests to block profiles and provide information. He ordered Telegram to appoint a local representative; the company eventually complied and remained online.
X and its former incarnation, Twitter, have been banned in several countries, mostly authoritarian regimes such as Russia, China, Iran, Myanmar, North Korea, Venezuela, and Turkmenistan. Other countries, including Pakistan, Turkey, and Egypt, have also temporarily suspended X previously, usually to quell dissent and unrest. Twitter was banned in Egypt after the Arab Spring uprisings, which some called the “Twitter revolution,” but has since been restored.
On Friday morning, a search on X showed hundreds of Brazilian users asking about VPNs that could allow them to continue using the platform by making it appear as if they were connecting from outside the country. It was not immediately clear how Brazilian authorities would police this practice and impose the fines cited by De Moraes.
“This is an unusual measure, but its main objective is to ensure that the court order to suspend the operation of the platform is, in fact, effective,” Filipe Medon, a digital law specialist and professor at the Getulio Vargas Foundation law school, a university in Rio de Janeiro, told The Associated Press. “As a general rule, there are no provisions in Brazilian law that prevent users from using VPNs, since it is not they who are subject to blocking and suspension orders, but the companies.”
Still, Mariana de Souza Alves Lima, known by her username MariMoon, showed her 1.4 million followers on X where she wants to go, posting a screenshot from rival social network BlueSky.
X said he plans to release what he called De Moraes’ “illegal claims” and related court documents “in the interest of transparency.”
Also Thursday night, Musk’s satellite internet service provider Starlink said on X that de Moraes this week froze his finances, preventing him from making any transactions in the country where he has more than 250,000 customers.
“This order is based on an unfounded determination that Starlink should be liable for fines unconstitutionally imposed against X. It was issued in secret and without affording Starlink any of the due process guaranteed by Brazil’s Constitution. We intend to address the matter legally,” Starlink said in its statement. The law firm representing Starlink told the AP that the company had appealed but would not comment further.
Another Brazilian Supreme Court judge, Cristiano Zanin, rejected a request by Starlink to unfreeze the company’s bank accounts.
Musk responded to people who shared reports of the freeze, adding insults directed at De Moraes. “This guy @Alexandre is a criminal of the worst kind, posing as a judge,” he wrote.
Musk later posted on X that SpaceX, which runs Starlink, will provide free internet service in Brazil “until the matter is resolved” as “we can’t get paid, but we don’t want to cut off service for anyone.”
In his decision, de Moraes said he ordered the freezing of Starlink’s assets because X did not have enough money in its accounts to cover the mounting fines and reasoned that the two companies are part of the same economic group.
While X’s suspension order was accompanied by warnings and fines and was therefore appropriate, taking action against Starlink seems “highly questionable,” said Luca Belli, coordinator of the Getulio Vargas Foundation’s Center for Technology and Society.
“Yes, of course, they have the same owner, Elon Musk, but it is discretionary to consider Starlink as part of the same economic group as Twitter (X). They have no connection, they have no integration,” Belli said.
Disclaimer:
The information contained in this post is for general information purposes only. We make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the post for any purpose.
We respect the intellectual property rights of content creators. If you are the owner of any material featured on our website and have concerns about its use, please contact us. We are committed to addressing any copyright issues promptly and will remove any material within 2 days of receiving a request from the rightful owner.