The world was taken aback when it was announced that the social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter, would be suspended in Brazil. This decision has sparked a heated debate, with opinions split on whether it represents censorship of free speech or a necessary measure to protect national sovereignty.
The Conflict
Elon Musk has been embroiled in an escalating dispute with Brazil. The Brazilian Supreme Court of Justice, led by Alexandre de Moraes, has been pivotal in this dispute. Musk has publicly criticized de Moraes, calling him an “evil dictator” and “Darth Vader” in a pinned post on X. The spat intensified when the local Brazilian assets of Starlink, another company owned by Musk, were frozen. Musk argues that the suspension of X in Brazil unfairly penalizes other shareholders and ordinary Brazilians. He views the situation as a battle over free speech, while de Moraes sees it as a matter of protecting national sovereignty or even a clash of egos.
Background
The roots of this conflict can be traced back five years, when the Brazilian Supreme Court began investigating disinformation and criticism against its justices. Alexandre de Moraes was given the authority to raid, censor, and even arrest individuals involved in “antidemocratic” activities. Critics argue that lawmakers or a government institution did not initiate this investigation but rather the court itself, with de Moraes serving as accuser, victim, and arbiter. Furthermore, during August, he ordered search warrants against business leaders after a local media outlet reported that a private group was discussing the potential benefits of a coup, yet failed to demonstrate an intentional and coordinated effort to undermine democracy. The court, however, refutes this characterisation, stating that it acts based on prosecutors’ recommendations or against individuals with parliamentary immunity, such as sitting lawmakers.
Recent Developments
Earlier this year, de Moraes blocked certain X profiles that were spreading hate speech, particularly those supporters of former President Jair Bolsonaro. Musk refused to comply, claiming that the orders violated Brazilian laws. Musk stated, “We do not know the reasons these blocking orders have been issued [and] we are prohibited from saying which court or judge issued the order, or on what grounds.”
Musk, a self-declared free-speech fundamentalist, bought X in late 2022 and eased its moderation policies, reinstating several banned accounts. While these actions were welcomed by some right-wingers, civil rights groups condemned the platform for failing to adequately police disinformation and extremist content. As a result of Musk not blocking the accounts of individuals accused of inciting or backing attacks on Brazil’s democratic order, de Moraes began imposing fines on X for non-compliance. The Brazilian justice system sought to identify a legal representative for X in Brazil, but the company had closed its office in the country. Still, earlier this year, de Moraes had threatened the company’s previous legal representative with arrest if she did not comply with the orders, which Musk labelled as “censorship.” Her bank accounts were subsequently blocked.
On August 30th, X was banned in Brazil after the company failed to appoint a new representative within a 24-hour deadline imposed by a court. De Moraes has authorized the “immediate, complete, and comprehensive suspension” of X’s operations in the country, directing the national communications agency to implement “all necessary measures” to enforce the order within the specified timetable. He warned that anyone employing technical subterfuges to dodge the block with VPNs would be penalized with a fine of R$ 50,000 reais (approximately $9,225 US dollars). The Brazilian Supreme Court unanimously upheld the suspension on the following Monday.
The Debate
The public conflict arises on the issue of free speech. Musk said that “free speech is the bedrock of democracy, and an unelected pseudo-judge in Brazil is destroying it for political purposes.” On the other hand, Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Flávio Dino emphasized that “freedom of expression is closely linked to a duty of responsibility.” Ordinary Brazilians are divided over the ban. A slim majority supports the judge’s actions in this public dispute, but many view the fines on VPN users and the freezing of Starlink’s assets as excessive. According to a poll conducted by Atlas on September 3-4, 50.9% of respondents disagreed with Moraes’s decision to suspend X, while 48.1% agreed, and 0.9% were unsure. When asked who was right in the conflict between Moraes and Musk, 49.7% sided with the judge, 43.9% supported Musk, and 5.4% did not choose a side. These numbers highlight the split view of Brazilian public opinion. Musk has argued that Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes is attempting to enforce unreasonable censorship, while the judge claims that regulating social media is necessary to control hate speech.
Perspectives
Freedom of Speech: This scenario can be seen as antithetical to the notion of the Internet as a “marketplace of ideas.” However, the vision of the internet as a transnational free-speech zone is increasingly being questioned, even in the U.S. famous for its First Amendment. Experts of law and political science from Northeastern University note that courts are rethinking the libertarian free-speech perspective and moving towards more regulation in the digital economy.
Moraes’s actions can be viewed as a defence of national sovereignty. Tech companies like X wield significant power, shaping narratives, perceptions, politics, trade, and daily activities. This “Technopolar world” raises questions about the balance of power between multinational corporations and national governments.
The conflict between Moraes and Musk might also be seen as a clash of egos. The outcome could set a precedent for future interactions between tech companies and governments. X was restored in Brazil on 9th October since Elon Musk’s company complied with the Brazilian Supreme Court’s demands, which included paying fines and appointing a legal representative in Brazil. Most importantly, this happened after almost a month and a half. Alexandre de Moraes emphasized the importance of adhering to Brazilian laws and court decisions. Many Brazilians expressed their excitement on X, acknowledging the Supreme Court’s role in the resolution.
The situation raises significant questions about balancing the fight against disinformation with protecting free speech, the extent of judicial power over digital platforms, and the responsibilities of Big Tech in adhering to local laws. This case is closely monitored by legal experts, policymakers, and tech industry leaders worldwide.
The Brazilian government’s actions have sparked concerns about censorship and the potential for increased regulation or coercion in other countries. In my view, the penalty uses too much power to violate the Constitution and individual liberty to access information and privacy. As many Brazilians claim, Brazil is closer to a dictatorship than ever before.
The European Union has introduced the Digital Market Act (DMA), a broad range of rules and prohibitions for Big Tech firms like Google, Meta, Apple, and Microsoft to ensure fair competition. The United Kingdom’s Online Safety Act, passed in October 2023, also mandates content moderation for minors under 16 on social media. Meanwhile, President Biden’s executive order on AI safety and security is ushering in a wave of global regulation.
Given these global trends, some might argue that the Brazilian government should consider implementing similar measures. However, such regulations could prompt the government to decide what information is deemed to be true or safe for people to consume in the digital space. While moderation might aim to protect users, it also runs the risk of curbing freedom of expression and restricting the search for truth. After all, people have the right to be mistaken or irrational in their views. We learn by making mistakes, refining our ideas through argument and interaction.
While people have the right to be mistaken or irrational in their views, we must also consider the potential consequences of unchecked misinformation, which can harm individuals and society. The challenge, then, is finding a way to protect freedom of expression while safeguarding against the spread of harmful or false content.
In this regard, X has launched a community-driven approach to fact-checking called Community Notes. This feature allows users to add context to potentially misleading content by addressing further information. By evolving the community, X envisions offering real-time and trustworthy information to its users.
George Orwell’s 1984 serves as a stark warning about the dangers of censorship and totalitarianism, particularly because when the state controls all information, it becomes easy to rewrite history and erase dissenting voices. 1984 reminds us of the importance of preserving freedom of expression and resisting the centralization of power that could lead to oppressive regimes through the suppression of information and the control of thought.
Conclusion
The recent suspension of X in Brazil portrays three different perspectives on the relationship between companies and the government. Whether deemed a fight for free speech, a defence of national sovereignty, or a clash of untamed egos, the consequences drastically interfered with individual rights and can also boost a political agenda, such as social media regulation in Brazil.
As Ayn Rand mentioned, “Freedom of speech means freedom from interference, suppression, or punitive action by the government—and nothing else. It does not mean the right to demand financial support or the material means to express your views at the expense of other men who may not wish to support you. Freedom of speech includes the freedom not to agree, not to listen, and not to support one’s own antagonists.” According to Rand, free speech is a fundamental right for protecting dissenters and unpopular minorities from forcible suppression. Any attempt to censor or control speech, even with the justification of protecting national sovereignty or combating disinformation, is a dangerous precedent that could lead to further erosion of individual freedom.
This piece solely expresses the opinion of the author and not necessarily the organisation as a whole. Students For Liberty is committed to facilitating a broad dialogue for liberty, representing a variety of opinions. If you’re interested in presenting your perspective on this blog, click here to send us your own piece submission!
