Brazilian Supreme Court to Decide on Social Media Suspension

By Luciana Magalhaes, Ricardo Brito

SAO PAULO (Reuters) – Brazilian Justice Kassio Nunes Marques stated that the full Supreme Court will ultimately decide on a case initiated by a conservative political party challenging the suspension of the social media platform X in Brazil. A document revealed this decision on Thursday, possibly intensifying an ongoing dispute spanning several months.

Marques pointed out that “the constitutional controversy conveyed in this argument is sensitive and has special repercussions for public and social order,” making it appropriate to present it to the entire Supreme Court.

A spokesperson from the Supreme Court added that this does not guarantee the case will be immediately referred to the full court since Marques might opt for an individual ruling before bringing it before the court’s 11 members. “What the justice said is that, in the end, the final decision must be made by the plenary,” the spokesperson conveyed.

Marques has also requested input from Brazil’s attorney general before reaching a conclusion.

The right-wing party Partido Novo seeks to overturn Justice Alexandre de Moraes’ ban on Elon Musk’s platform, X. “This is about freedom of expression – we want X back to normal in Brazil,” stated Jonathan Mariano, a federal prosecutor and candidate for Rio de Janeiro’s city council from Partido Novo.

Last week, Moraes ordered the suspension of X in Brazil, its sixth-largest market, after the platform, formerly known as Twitter, failed to adhere to requests for blocking specific accounts accused of disseminating “fake news” and harmful messages that Moraes argued threatened democracy. X also neglected to designate a local legal representative as mandated by Brazilian law and missed compliance deadlines.

In retaliation, Moraes froze the assets of Musk’s Starlink satellite broadband company to potentially cover fines owed by X.

Public opinion is divided regarding Moraes’ decision to suspend X in Brazil. A slight majority supports the judge’s dispute with Musk, but many view the fines against VPN users and the asset freezing as “abusive.”

Musk has labeled Moraes a “dictator,” alleging he is “shutting down the #1 source of truth in Brazil,” while X has closed its Brazil offices, citing “censorship” by the judge.

Partido Novo has filed for a court injunction to halt Moraes’ suspension of X, deeming it unconstitutional and questioning the freezing of Starlink assets, asserting the two companies are distinct entities.

Moraes did not comment on the party’s challenges on Wednesday, and Musk, his attorney, and Starlink have not responded to repeated inquiries this week.

Musk, who owns X and 40% of the parent company SpaceX, is also the CEO of electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA).

Brazil’s leftist president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, supports Moraes’ suspension, stating, “Just because a guy has a lot of money doesn’t mean he can disrespect” the law. Musk has responded by derisively labeling Lula as Moraes’ “lapdog.”

One of the Supreme Court’s two panels backed Moraes’ decision, but some experts argue that such a divisive issue should have been discussed by all 11 justices rather than a subset.

“This controversial issue should have seen full debate among all justices, not just half,” remarked Sao Paulo-based constitutional lawyer Vera Chemim, indicating that this case epitomizes a power struggle between Musk and Moraes.

Chemim asserted that freezing Starlink’s accounts breaches Brazilian law and should be immediately overturned.

Conversely, former Supreme Court chief justice Carlos Ayres Britto contended, “X and Starlink are tentacles of the same octopus; they form an economic group.”

Partido Novo isn’t alone in contesting Moraes’ ruling. Brazil’s Bar Association has also urged the Supreme Court to overturn Moraes’ sentence, imposing 50,000 reais ($8,900) daily fines on Brazilians using VPNs to access X in Brazil, arguing that such penalties breach constitutional values of separation of powers, comprehensive defense, and due process.