With the recent news about the closure of X in Brazil by Alexandre de Moraes, minister of the Supreme Federal Court, I can’t stop, as a Brazilian, thinking about how it was done and the reasons behind it. Was it a democratic act to protect the population from fake news and far-right group formation or the opposite – an anti-democratic act with political interest?
It is important to stress however, I don’t agree with how Musk is dealing with X and how our feeds are being populated by orchestrated groups from the far-right, and Trump ‘propaganda’. But that doesn’t mean Moraes was right, or followed correct process, in the action he took.
How X closure started
On 22 July 2024, Moraes signed a document fining X R$20,000/day, due to it not being willing to agree to his request to censor several of its users. Nowadays failure to sensor seems to be seen as a crime by the Supreme Court. Moraes demanded the removal of posts and accounts that exposed details about himself.
We have rights and responsibilities as citizens, and these include what it means to have free speech. We are responsible for what we say in public. If we break the law then there are consequences, and this includes potential accusations of defamation. But do these consequences include removing someone’s right to use that social media platform? Should they be ‘cancelled’ and silenced forever?
One of the accounts was from a Brazilian senator. In Brazil, the Constitution gives senators an even higher level of protection for freedom of speech than ordinary citizens. In order to defend the principle of separation of powers, the National Congress should give specific representation regarding any request to remove a senator’s social media account.
On 17 August, X announced it was going to close its office in Brazil saying:
“Alexandre de Moraes threatened our legal representative in Brazil with arrest if we do not comply with his censorship orders.”
Finally, on 30 August, Moraes ordered the suspension of X in Brazil. After the company had closed its office there, Moraes had given X a deadline to indicate who its legal representative in Brazil was. This deadline expired. Moraes also demanded that Google and Apple remove the X app from their sites. Furthermore, he forbade the use of virtual private networks (VPNs) as a tool to access the platform.
The ‘buts’ and ‘question marks’ of X’s closure
Article 774, section IV of the Code of Civil Procedure, states that “It is considered an affront to the dignity of justice when the conduct of the debtor, either by action or omission: unjustifiably resists court orders; …the judge shall impose a fine of no more than twenty percent of the updated value of the debt under execution, which will be awarded to the creditor and can be enforced within the same proceedings, without prejudice to other procedural or substantive sanctions.”
The question now is: does the order imposed on X ignore the law, and is it unconstitutional?
A punishment should never apply to third parties who are not part of the process. No one should be punished without being charged and convicted. Yet the ban on downloading and using X in Brazil now applies to all users of the platform, regardless of their actions. They are collectively being punished. More practically, how does the Supreme Court propose to monitor users? Would it select only certain categories of profiles? Wouldn’t this have the potential to be politically motivated and therefore illegal, as we have in the case of the Moraes ruling?
Interesting to note, a few hours after the minister ordered Google and Apple to remove the app from their stores, and ordered a ban on VPNs, these orders were suspended by the Supreme Court. However, the R$ 50,000 fine for Brazilian citizens accessing X in Brazil has been kept.
More ironic, the subpoena signed by Moraes regarding the suspension of the platform was officially delivered via the Supreme Court account on the very same platform – X! As Caio Coppolla rightly commented on CNN, by strangely doing so Moraes reinforced the importance that the platform and social networks can have for Brazilian democracy.
What the closure of X means in Brazil
X is the main social network used by journalists, politicians and official institutions in Brazil, to which citizens have easy access. To remove this platform while X was still going through the legal process – without the rights of a fair defence with an appropriate competent neutral judge – is not democratic. Shouldn’t this, in itself, be considered censorship?
Moraes has been criticised both at home and abroad, due to the authoritarian nature of his actions. Is the closure of X exposing the dark side of how the judiciary system is ‘working’ in Brazil?
I am well aware that social networks, like Facebook, BlueSky and X, need to monitor the content published by radical groups such as the far-right, and extremist left. They also need to monitor for other potential criminal activity including terrorism. In the UK, the Labour appears to be moving towards the centre; and in my opinion the ruling party in Brazil, while claiming to be left-wing, is demonstrating the actions of the far-right.
Now I wonder how this issue would be handled in the UK. Our Prime Minister had his chance to close X when Musk confronted him on the platform during the riots, and even so, he didn’t. Why? Maybe because Starmer knows it could well be anti-democratic…
More in democracy.
Subscribe to our newsletters
Each of our Bylines sends a newsletter every month and we also send out a ‘Best of Bylines, featuring a selection of the best articles from across the network
