The way I see this: the Supreme Court asked X to remove content and accounts that main purpose were to promote hate and aggression towards the electoral system and institutions; X didn't comply; fines were issued; fines were never paid by X; the justice started using all available legal tools to fulfill the previous mandates (content removal and/or pecuniary penalties).
If you are going to post here, you need to engage in good faith. A five second search could have brought you to numerous articles quoting Lula where he supports Alexandre de Moraes’s actions and criticizes Musk. So yes, the executive and the judiciary are mixed because one is lending support publicly to the other. Those are the FACTS.
> The way I see this: the Supreme Court asked X to remove content and accounts that main purpose were to promote hate and aggression towards the electoral system and institutions
It doesn’t matter if accounts promote “hate and aggression towards the electoral system and institutions” (which just sounds like hyperbole for criticizing political processes) - that isn’t sufficient grounds for state enforced censorship in any free and democratic society. If you want to admit that Brazil has turned authoritarian, that’s one thing. But these convoluted narratives are wildly inaccurate and unconvincing.
Right. Everyone can see that.
Seems like the poster understands the law part fine, but not the rule part.
You're guessing wrong.
> It is unconstitutional in Brazil, because Article 5 explicitly says there is a right for anyone in the country - citizens and visitors - to freedom of expression without censorship. It actually says the part about censorship, emphasizing its place in the constitution.
I'm familiar with Article 5 and the rest of the Brazilian Constitution. Yes, freedom of expression but not unlimited freedom. There is no shortage of examples of limits to this right. Here's one arguably lengthy but compelling opinion piece dated from 2021, so prior to this situation and therefore unbiased, which argues that Brazilian Law draws the line at "inciting violence" whether against people or institutions: https://direito.usp.br/noticia/4bdc11296800-os-limites-a-lib...
Importantly the author supports that challenging the government in the form of speech is fine, but not in the form of inciting violence.
> The justice in question here, Alexandre de Moraes, sits on the Supreme Court equivalent in Brazil. He’s the one issuing secret orders. He has support of the sitting president, Lula, since these actions are against Lula’s political opposition. The other justices are not free to speak against this practice because the aggressiveness of the current regime creates fear of speaking against them. Also, keep in mind there isn’t a due process to challenge these orders both because they are from a justice in the highest court and because they are done in secret, outside the public’s visibility, as it would normally be in due process. Separate from the free speech concerns, this part is also unconstitutional as you cannot have courts or tribunals outside the normal due process.
I mean, this is ultimately just a biased political take and does not hold actually hold water under any reasonable interpretation of due process in Brazil. Supreme court judges need not consult with the populace to make legal decisions. Here's the whole decision laying out the facts: https://www.conjur.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/PET-124...
> Musk is his own person. Twitter/X is not run by Musk, but a different CEO, Linda Yaccarino. The company made these decisions to refuse the secret orders, because Twitter/X’s legal team determined they are illegal under Brazilian law. It’s not about calling anyone’s bluff but appealing to the public as a last means to fight authoritarianism.
Musk owns Twitter and ultimately decides what it does. The CEO doesn't truly have final say, the owner ultimately does. The CEO is an employee of the company. The "fight authoritarianism" saber rattling is tiring and inaccurate. There is no "secret" decision. It's all a matter of public record, as I've linked you to.
> Unconstitutional in which country?
It is unconstitutional in Brazil, because Article 5 explicitly says there is a right for anyone in the country - citizens and visitors - to freedom of expression without censorship. It actually says the part about censorship, emphasizing its place in the constitution.
> And if you disagree with that in Brazil you can make your case to the Supreme Court.
The justice in question here, Alexandre de Moraes, sits on the Supreme Court equivalent in Brazil. He’s the one issuing secret orders. He has support of the sitting president, Lula, since these actions are against Lula’s political opposition. The other justices are not free to speak against this practice because the aggressiveness of the current regime creates fear of speaking against them. Also, keep in mind there isn’t a due process to challenge these orders both because they are from a justice in the highest court and because they are done in secret, outside the public’s visibility, as it would normally be in due process. Separate from the free speech concerns, this part is also unconstitutional as you cannot have courts or tribunals outside the normal due process.
> Musk was playing chicken with a Brazilian Supreme Court judge who called his bluff.
Musk is his own person. Twitter/X is not run by Musk, but a different CEO, Linda Yaccarino. The company made these decisions to refuse the secret orders, because Twitter/X’s legal team determined they are illegal under Brazilian law. It’s not about calling anyone’s bluff but appealing to the public as a last means to fight authoritarianism.