October 7 (IPS) –
CIVICUS discusses the recent Twitter/X ban in Brazil with Iná Jost, lawyer and head of research at InternetLab, an independent Brazilian think tank focused on human rights and digital technologies.
Brazil’s Supreme Court recently upheld a ban on Elon Musk’s social media platform X, formerly Twitter, after it repeatedly refused to comply with orders to moderate its content. The court ordered tech companies to remove X from app stores and imposed fines for continued access through VPNs in Brazil. This seemed to cause users to switch to alternatives like Bluesky and Threads. Musk condemned the ban as an attack on freedom of speech, but has since done so gone backwards and complied with the court’s orders. The debate over the implications of the controversy for democracy and accountability continues.
The case started on August 7 when a Supreme Court judge investigating “digital malicious activity” ordered the blocking of seven X-profiles for intimidating law enforcement officers and directly threatening the integrity of the court and democracy in Brazil.
X refused to comply with the order, claiming it violated freedom of speech. The judge then imposed a daily fine for non-compliance, which was subsequently increased and ultimately exceeded $3 million as Musk continued to refuse to comply. At one point, the justice ordered the freezing of X’s financial assets in Brazil, but these were not enough to cover the fines.
After more back and forth, tensions escalated when the judge also froze the bank accounts of satellite internet company Starlink, arguing that both companies were part of the same economic group. This caused some controversy, as Starlink operates in a different area and its activities are not entirely related to X.
The turning point came when X closed its headquarters in Brazil. Without a legal representative in the country, the court found it difficult to enforce its orders or impose additional penalties. She then gave X 24 hours to appoint a new representative, which she failed to do. As a result, on August 30, the court ordered the closure of X.
It is important to mention that the court is not super transparent and that the entire procedure took place under seal. We cannot see the full picture because the process is closed and not all decisions are made public.
What was the legal basis for the decision to close X?
The Court based its decision on Brazil in 2014 Civil framework for the Internet. Under this law, platforms can be blocked for not complying with Brazilian laws or court orders. Some confusion arose over the idea that the ban was due to X’s lack of a legal representative in Brazil; However, the closure was due to the company’s repeated refusal to comply with court orders.
Civil society has expressed concerns about certain aspects of the decision. Initially, the order included blocking VPN services to prevent access to X, but this part was later reversed due to cybersecurity risks. Blocking VPNs that serve legitimate purposes would have been disproportionate. The order also proposed a $9,000 fine for users who tried to circumvent the ban, which many said was excessive. We believe the focus should be on holding the company accountable, not punishing individual users.
Is it possible to strike a balance between regulating online platforms and protecting freedoms?
It is. Regulating platforms is not necessarily about censorship. In this case, it’s about a powerful company operating transparently and protecting users. Platforms that act exclusively in their commercial interests can harm the public interest. Regulations can force them to provide clear terms and conditions and fair content moderation policies and to respect due process for content removal.
The belief that any form of regulation threatens freedom of expression is misleading. Thoughtful regulations that allow users to express themselves while protecting them from harm such as hate speech or misinformation can balance the scales.
Musk’s position in this case is highly problematic. His selective compliance with court orders undermines the rule of law. Although platforms like X are crucial for public communication, that does not give them the right to defy the legal system in which they operate. Free speech does not absolve platforms of their legal responsibilities, especially when those laws protect the integrity of democracy.
Musk’s claim that X represents absolute freedom of expression does not take into account the risks of a platform without proper rules. Without moderation, platforms can become a haven for extremist groups, hate speech and disinformation. They need to be regulated to ensure that they remain a space for lawful debate.
Do you think this case sets a precedent?
I don’t think so. Some people are afraid that other platforms could also be blocked, but I don’t think that will happen. This is a unique scenario and Brazil is a strong democracy. This was not censorship by the judiciary, but a necessary measure given the platform owner’s refusal to comply with court orders.
States must develop regulatory mechanisms that allow them to hold platforms accountable and ensure compliance with national laws. This would avoid the need for outright blocking, which ultimately hurts users the most. While the company may suffer financial losses, journalists and citizens will lose access to an essential information and communication tool.
I hope that states that are serious about regulating platforms will see this as an example of what should not happen. We must not allow things to escalate to this point. And we certainly shouldn’t use this as a leading argument for blocking platforms.
Contact InternetLab through her website or are Instagram And Facebook pages and follow @internetlabbr on Twitter.
Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram
© Inter Press Service (2024) — All rights reservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service
