Because those countries have laws that back their decisions. We don't. We are a democracy, we have laws - and there are no laws that allows the decisions this judge is taking.

Elon is not questioning our laws, or India or Turkey. He is questioning that the judge is not following our laws and he's right.

Brazilian Marco Civil da Internet[1], the local Internet law, stipulates providers must provide records if presented a court order (Art. 10, § 1º). It also says (Art. 12) failure to comply may lead to the following sanctions, in that order: I - formal warning, II - fines up to controlling group 10% total revenue, III - temporary suspension and IV - activity shutdown at last. So in fact there is proper legal coverage.

[1]. https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2011-2014/2014/lei...

This part of the Marco Civil talks about logs, and that's not what the judge is requesting. The judge is requesting that social network profiles to be taken down, without telling the person that got the profile taken down the reason - which removes their ability to defend theirselves in the court.

IIRC the reasons are detailed in a document[1] that was already shared here before. TL;DR - It appears after the January 8 coup d'état attempt in Brazil, it was opened an investigation to identify who coordinated and who participated in the coup. Then some xitter profiles started a coordinated threat and doxxing campaign against police investigators who took this case. So the brazilian supreme court ordered xitter to provide information and block seven profiles involved in this doxxing campaign, what it refused to do.

[1]. https://static.poder360.com.br/2024/09/decisao-stf-x.pdf (Portuguese)

> It appears after the January 8 coup d'état attempt in Brazil

There was no attempt of coup d'état in Brazil, just a bunch of stupid people protesting and breaking public buldings, just like several other groups, for different reasons did the same in the past.

> it was opened an investigation

The investigation itself is illegal, because it's investigating people that should not be investigated by that branch of justice. Our supreme court only judges constitutional matters and politicians on the federal level, not regular citizens.

> Then some xitter profiles started a coordinated threat and doxxing campaign against police investigators who took this case.

That's also false, nobody ever attacked the police.

> So the brazilian supreme court ordered xitter to provide information and block seven profiles involved in this doxxing campaign, what it refused to do.

Which there are no base in the law, which it's the problem being pointed here.

Unlike "Common Law" countries, in Brazil judges can only do what the law says they can do. There's absolutely NOWHERE in our law, that says if someone commits something, their social network profile will be blocked.