US committee makes public Brazil court orders to halt X accounts that are sealed

Confidential Brazilian court orders to ban accounts on the social networking site X were made public by a US congressional committee, providing an insight into the decisions that have sparked accusations of censorship from the business and its billionaire owner, Elon Musk.

Late on Wednesday, the Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee released a staff report that revealed many rulings made by Justice Alexandre de Moraes of the Brazilian Supreme Court directing X to either suspend or delete over 150 user accounts from its platform during the previous few years.

The committee subpoenas issued against X resulted in the 541-page report. De Moraes had forbidden X from making them public in his directives.

“X Corp. has responded to the Committee in order to comply with its obligations under US law,” the business said in a statement on April 15.

The revelation coincides with a conflict between Musk and de Moraes.

The self-described absolutist for free speech, Musk, had promised to make public de Moraes’ directives, which he saw as tantamount to censorship. Supporters of far-right former President Jair Bolsonaro, who claim they are the targets of political persecution and have found common ground with their ideological friends in the US, have lent their encouragement to his campaign.

De Moraes has been in charge of a five-year investigation into groups dubbed “digital militias,” which are accused of spreading threats and false information against Supreme Court judges. The probe was broadened to include those instigating protests around the nation with the aim of nullifying Bolsonaro’s 2022 election defeat. Bolsonaro supporters stormed government institutions, including the Supreme Court, in an effort to remove President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva from office. These demonstrations culminated in the revolt that occurred in Brazil’s capital on January 8.

Critics of De Moraes contend that he has overreached himself and should not have the authority to impose a blanket ban on social media accounts, even those of lawmakers who were democratically elected. However, the majority of legal experts believe that his audacious strategies are both legally sound and also warranted by the unique conditions of a democracy under jeopardy. They point out that his rulings have either been accepted by the other judges or have not been contested.

The Brazilian Supreme Court and the country’s highest electoral court, which de Moraes presently rule over, had both issued the covert directives that the congressional investigation revealed.

When contacted by The Associated Press, the Supreme Court’s press office refused to comment on the possible implications of their publication.

Carlos Affonso, head of the nonprofit Institute of Technology and Society, said of Musk, “He is indeed a very innovative businessman; he innovated with electric cars, he innovated with rockets, and now he invented a new form of non-compliance of a court order, through an intermediary.” “He found someone to do this for him and said he would reveal the documents.”

The orders are lawful, according to Affonso, a human rights expert at the State University of Rio de Janeiro, but they do warrant discussion since users were not told why their accounts were banned or whether the platform was acting on a court’s decision. Hardly ever do the directives to X in the report provide an explanation either.

In a statement released on Thursday afternoon, the Supreme Court’s press office said that although the orders do not include explanations, businesses and those whose accounts have been stopped may get access by seeking the court’s rulings.

Despite Musk’s constant criticism of de Moraes’ demands, which he claims violate “free speech” values and amount to “aggressive censorship,” the business he owns has complied with international government requests.

For example, X censored postings critical of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan last year, and at the government’s request, it blocked accounts and posts in India in February.

On February 21, X wrote on his global affairs account, saying, “The Indian government has issued executive orders requiring X to act on specific accounts and posts, subject to potential penalties including significant fines and imprisonment.” “We disagree with these actions and maintain that freedom of expression should extend to these posts. However, we will withhold these accounts and posts in India alone in compliance with the orders.”

Brazil is a significant market for social media networks like X. Approximately 18% of the Brazilian population, or 40 million people, use X at least once a month, according to market research firm eMarketer.

X has complied with suspension orders since large penalties were a danger. Generally, De Moraes sets a two-hour deadline for compliance and fines disobedience with 100,000 reais ($20,000) each day.

It’s unclear whether the 150 blocked accounts are all of the ones de Moraes asked to be suspended. It was unknown up until the committee report how many there were overall—a few dozen, a handful, or more. Since then, a few of the report’s suspended accounts have been reinstated.

Musk confronted de Moraes on X on April 6, asking him to explain his “demanding so much censorship in Brazil.” The next day, the tech tycoon said that de Moraes need to step down or face impeachment and that he would no longer abide by court orders to restrict accounts. He warned Brazilians that X may be blocked in their country and advised them to use a VPN to stay online.

De Moraes initiated an immediate probe into Musk’s possible involvement in incitement, obstruction, and criminal organization in addition to integrating Musk into the current investigation of digital militias. In a letter obtained by the AP on April 13, X’s Brazilian attorney informed de Moraes that the company will abide by all court directions.

According to Affonso, the committee’s decision to make de Moraes’ directives public was more directed at US President Joe Biden’s administration than at Brazil. Brazil serves as “a stark warning to Americans about the threats posed by government censorship here at home,” according to the study.

Since at least the 2016 presidential election, terms like “censorship” and “free speech” have become political rallying points for US conservatives, who are enraged about the removal of prominent Republican officials and right-leaning commentators from Facebook and Twitter in the pre-Musk era due to rule violations.

The far-right needs Musk because they require a platform and a location to advertise themselves. Furthermore, Elon Musk needs far-right politicians to shield his platform from laws, according to David Nemer, a social media expert at the University of Virginia and a native of Brazil.

Free speech is guaranteed by the US constitution and is much more liberal than it is in other nations, such as Brazil. Bolsonaro and his far-right followers seemed to be galvanized by the report’s publication, however.

Bolsonaro asked for a round of applause for Musk as he concluded a speech at a public gathering late on Wednesday, just after the court orders were made public.

His crowd obeyed enthusiastically.