Judge suspends X platform in Brazil amid feud with Elon Musk

The most strict possible i suppose beside jail time.
Why is that i would not know as i am ignorant of their socio political specifics.

It's probably Unconstitutional under Article 5 of the Brazilian Constitution...which is ironic since a Supreme Court judge issued it.
there are no crimes unless defined in prior law, nor are there any penalties unless previously imposed by law;
 
It's probably Unconstitutional under Article 5 of the Brazilian Constitution...which is ironic since a Supreme Court judge issued it.
Yep, that is almost universal law principle for smoother legal processes but stranger things happened in bending laws for various events.
 
Good move Brazil,

Every country should have influence and control on social media outlets within their law systems and force them to comply.

Wasn't non-complying the reason PDF was shutdown...and had to be moved out of the reach of Pakistani authorities.

Anyways Twitter previously was notorious for implementing its definition of "what is right and what is wrong".

Elon Musk is more leaning towards "if it isn't a crime or leading to a crime then why should it be banned".

Same here on PDF (except for religious and gore topics)
 
Last edited:
That's okay but what message in their Supreme Court sending the Brazilian people by threatening them with $8,900 daily fines for non-compliance.

Even the Chinese don't (and likely wouldn't) do that and their firewall is far far far more restrictive.

The SC judge ruling is binding within the country. Anyone who willfully circumvents that ruling is subject to penalties which, in this case, is a fine.

The exact same thing would happen in the US if someone defied a SC ruling. If someone disagrees with the ruling, they can appeal it (not sure if SCOTUS rulings can even be appealed but I think Australian SC rulings can) and go through the legal process. Until and unless the ruling is stayed or overturned, people must obey or face the consequences.
 
The SC judge ruling is binding within the country. Anyone who willfully circumvents that ruling is subject to penalties which, in this case, is a fine.

The exact same thing would happen in the US if someone defied a SC ruling. If someone disagrees with the ruling, they can appeal it (not sure if SCOTUS rulings can even be appealed but I think Australian SC rulings can) and go through the legal process. Until and unless the ruling is stayed or overturned, people must obey or face the consequences.

No, the US Supreme Court can't assess new penalties against non-defendants or other people not testifying in the case. That's beyond their judicial reach/scope.
 
No, the US Supreme Court can't assess new penalties against non-defendants or other people not testifying in the case. That's beyond their judicial reach/scope.

There may be standing laws about what happens to someone who disobeys an SC order. Otherwise, an SC ruling has no meaning if people aren't required to obey it.
 
There may be standing laws about what happens to someone who disobeys an SC order. Otherwise, an SC ruling has no meaning if people aren't required to obey it.

There are no US Supreme Court orders. Laws and penalties are made by Congress and State legislatures. The Supreme Court just determines if those laws/penalties don't contradict the Constitution or current laws. It doesn't create or assess new ones.

Congress could pass a law tomorrow saying anybody who attempts to access "X.com" has to pay a $6,000 fine. Somebody takes that law to the Supreme Court and loses their case. They then have to pay the pre-established $6,000.

The judge can't say "make that $20,000 a day instead". That's outside his power.

Even in Civil/Criminal cases the penalty ranges are set by the legislature. The judge can't arbitrarily fine somebody $1Million. He has to abide by a pre-set judgement range or formula.
 
Last edited:
Wasn't non-complying the reason PDF was shutdown...and had to be moved out of the reach of Pakistani authorities.

Anyways Twitter previously was notorious for implementing its definition of "what is right and what is wrong".

Elon Musk is more leaning towards "if it isn't a crime or leading to a crime then why should it be banned".

Same here on PDF (except for religious and gore topics)
I am glad that you remember manifestation of authorities powers regarding restrictions of public expression.
 
There are no Supreme Court orders. Laws and penalties are made by Congress and State legislatures. The Supreme Court just determines if those laws/penalties don't contradict the Constitution or current laws. It doesn't create or assess new ones.

Congress could pass a law tomorrow saying anybody who attempts to access "X.com" has to pay a $6,000 fine. Somebody takes that law to the Supreme Court and loses their case. They then have to pay the pre-established $6,000.

The judge can't say "make that $20,000 a day instead". That's outside his power.

Even in Civil/Criminal cases the penalty ranges are set by the legislature. The judge can't arbitrarily fine somebody $1Million. He has to abide by a pre-set judgement range or formula.

But that is what happened here. The Brazilian judge decided that X violates the country's laws so anyone who continues to use X in Brazil is violating the country's laws.

I agree the penalty should be set by the legislature but Brazilian law may allow that. Penalties are routinely assigned by judges where the law provides general guidelines. In any case, that is a minor technicality; the point is that there should be penalties for violating a country's laws.
 
Last edited:

A Brazilian Supreme Court justice on Friday ordered the suspension of Elon Musk's social media giant X in Brazil after the tech billionaire refused to name a legal representative in the country, according to a copy of the decision seen by The Associated Press

The move further escalates the monthslong feud between the two men over free speech, far-right accounts and misinformation.

Justice Alexandre de Moraes had warned Musk on Wednesday night that X, formerly known as Twitter, could be blocked in Brazil if he failed to comply with his order to name a representative, and established a 24-hour deadline. The company hasn't had a representative in the country since earlier this month.

Brazil Musk X Shutdown

Brazilian Supreme Court Chief Justice Alexandre de MoraesERALDO PERES / AP

In his decision, de Moraes gave internet service providers and app stores five days to block access to X, and said the platform will remain blocked until it complies with his orders. He also said people or companies who use virtual private networks, or VPNs, to access X will be subject to daily fines of 50,000 reais, or $8,900.

"Elon Musk showed his total disrespect for Brazilian sovereignty and, in particular, for the judiciary, setting himself up as a true supranational entity and immune to the laws of each country," de Moraes wrote.

Brazil is an important market for X, which has struggled with the loss of advertisers since Musk purchased it in 2022. Market research group Emarketer says some 40 million Brazilians, roughly one-fifth of the population, access X at least once per month.

X had posted on its official Global Government Affairs page late Thursday that it expected X to be shut down by de Moraes, "simply because we would not comply with his illegal orders to censor his political opponents."

"When we attempted to defend ourselves in court, Judge de Moraes threatened our Brazilian legal representative with imprisonment. Even after she resigned, he froze all of her bank accounts," the company wrote. "Our challenges against his manifestly illegal actions were either dismissed or ignored. Judge de Moraes' colleagues on the Supreme Court are either unwilling or unable to stand up to him."

X has clashed with de Moraes over its reluctance to comply with orders to block users.

Accounts that the platform previously has shut down on Brazilian orders include lawmakers affiliated with former President Jair Bolsonaro's right-wing party and activists accused of undermining Brazilian democracy.

Musk, a self-proclaimed "free speech absolutist," has repeatedly claimed the justice'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 tyrant.

De Moraes' defenders have said his actions aimed at X have been lawful, supported by most of the court's full bench, and have served to protect democracy at a time in which it is imperiled. His order Friday is based on Brazilian law requiring foreign companies to have representation in the country so they can be notified when there are legal cases against them.

Given that operators are aware of the widely publicized standoff and their obligation to comply with an order from de Moraes, plus the fact doing so isn't complicated, X could be offline as early as 12 hours after receiving their instructions, said Luca Belli, coordinator of the Technology and Society Center at the Getulio Vargas Foundation, a university in Rio de Janeiro.

The shutdown is not unprecedented in Brazil.

Lone Brazilian judges shut down Meta's WhatsApp, the nation's most widely used messaging app, several times in 2015 and 2016 due to the company's refusal to comply with police requests for user data. In 2022, de Moraes threatened the messaging app Telegram with a nationwide shutdown, arguing it had repeatedly ignored Brazilian authorities' requests to block profiles and provide information. He ordered Telegram to appoint a local representative; the company ultimately complied and stayed 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, such as Pakistan, Turkey and Egypt, have also temporarily suspended X before, usually to quell dissent and unrest. Twitter was banned in Egypt after the Arab Spring uprisings, which some dubbed the "Twitter revolution," but it has since been restored.

A search Friday on X showed hundreds of Brazilian users inquiring about VPNs that could potentially enable them to continue using the platform by making it appear they were logging on from outside the country. It was not immediately clear how Brazilian authorities would police this practice and impose fines cited by de Moraes.

Mariana de Souza Alves Lima, known by her handle MariMoon, showed her 1.4 million followers on X that she would go to rival social network BlueSky, posting a screenshot and saying: "That is where I'm going."

X said that it plans to publish what it has called de Moraes' "illegal demands" and related court filings "in the interest of transparency."

Also on Thursday evening, Starlink, Musk's satellite internet service provider, said on X that de Moraes this week froze its finances, preventing it from doing any transactions in the country where it has more than 250,000 customers.

"This order is based on an unfounded determination that Starlink should be responsible for the fines levied—unconstitutionally—against X. It was issued in secret and without affording Starlink any of the due process of law guaranteed by the Constitution of Brazil. We intend to address the matter legally," Starlink said in its statement.

Musk replied to people sharing the reports of the freeze, adding insults directed at de Moraes. "This guy @Alexandre is an outright criminal of the worst kind, masquerading 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" since "we cannot receive payment, but don't want to cut anyone off."

In his decision, de Moraes said he ordered the freezing of Starlink's assets, as X didn't have enough money in its accounts to cover mounting fines and reasoning that the two companies are part of the same economic group.
Excellent decision. A platofemnthat is predominantly toxic and predatory, spreading weaponized misinformation and controlled by a billionaire who treats it as his own playground whilst actively interfering in the internal matters of sovereign nations.
 

Brazil judge withdraws $3.3 million from Musk’s Starlink and X to pay for social media fines​


SAO PAULO (AP) — A Brazilian Supreme Court justice on Friday seized about $3 million from bank accounts belonging to social media platform X and satellite-based internet service provider Starlink, both companies controlled by tech billionaire Elon Musk.

The move by Justice Alexandre de Moraes was aimed at collecting funds that are equivalent to the amount that X owes to the country in fines. The bank accounts of the two companies have since been unfrozen.

Legal analysts have questioned de Moraes’ prior decision to freeze Starlink’s bank account to pay for cases related to X. While Musk owns both X and SpaceX, which operates Starlink, the two companies are separate entities.

Brazil’s Supreme Court said Friday in a statement that de Moraes ruled to transfer more than 7.2 million Brazilian reais ($1.3 million) from an X bank account and almost 11 million Brazilian reais ($2 million) from a Starlink account.

De Moraes made the decision on Wednesday, Brazil’s Supreme Court said. His ruling on the case is yet to be made public.

Brazil’s Supreme Court also said that the banks that hold accounts of the two companies were informed on Thursday they had complied with the decision.

“After the payment of the full amount that was owed, the justice (de Moraes) considered there was no need to keep the bank accounts frozen and ordered the immediate unfreezing of bank accounts/financial assets,” the Brazilian Supreme Court said.



X did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Associated Press.

The social media platform has been under fire in Brazil since it refused to remove content flagged as illegal by the Supreme Court justice.

De Moraes is the same justice who suspended X in Brazil due to Musk’s decision to not have a legal representative for the company in the South American nation, which is against the law.

The company has claimed that de Moraes wants an in-country representative so that local authorities can exert leverage by having someone to arrest.

Many legal analysts, including some who have supported de Moraes’ rulings related to X, disagree with charging Starlink for X’s fines.

“Starlink is a different company. Belonging to the same economic group doesn’t mean it is also responsible for a debt it did not take part of. It didn’t even have a chance to defend itself,” Lênio Streck, a renowned Brazilian jurist, said in his social media channels. “What could Starlink have done to avoid what other company did?”

Luís Henrique Machado, a law professor at the IDP university in the capital, Brasilia, said de Moraes’ decision is consistent.

“The social media company was sanctioned for not removing content after an order of the Supreme Court amid ongoing investigations. It is totally understandable that the judge requests that the fines be paid,” Machado said. “The ruling is legitimate in imposing the transfer of the amounts in compulsorily fashion.”

Since last year, X has clashed with de Moraes over its reluctance to block some users, mostly far-right activists accused of undermining Brazilian democracy. Musk has called the Brazilian justice a dictator and an autocrat due to his rulings affecting his companies in Brazil.
 
More than half of Brazil surface must be remote zones with no other possibility of communication than satellites, attack starlink is like if they shoot their own feet.
 
Brazil is ruled by Marxist party dictatorship. No surprised by this move. They don't want their political opponents to organize.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Pakistan Defence Latest

Back
Top