A recent decision by a panel of five Brazilian Supreme Court justices has garnered attention for its implications on internet access in the country. The ruling requires the National Telecommunications Agency (Anatel) to restrict access to X, the service formerly known as Twitter. This decision was made in response to X owner Elon Musk’s refusal to comply with court orders to block certain accounts and identify a legal representative in Brazil.
The decision to uphold the ban on X was supported by five justices, with Justice Alexandre de Moraes taking the lead in issuing the ban. Three of the justices, Cristiano Zanin, Flávio Dino, and Cármen Lúcia, fully supported de Moraes’ ruling. However, a fourth justice, Luiz Fux, expressed reservations about imposing fines on individuals who bypass the ban using a VPN. Fux suggested that only those who post criminal messages, such as those promoting Nazism or fascism, should be subject to fines.
Following the ban on X, competing platforms have reported a surge in new accounts created by Brazilian users seeking alternative means of communication. News organization Poder360 announced that its X account will now be managed from Portugal to comply with the court’s decision. On the other hand, Starlink, a satellite-based internet service operated by SpaceX, has refused to comply with the ban until its assets are unfrozen by the court. Despite these developments, reports suggest that X remains accessible through the service.
In addition to blocking access to X, Justice de Moraes has taken steps to restrict Starlink’s operations in Brazil. The court is seeking to collect $3 million in unpaid fines from X, prompting de Moraes to block Starlink from conducting transactions in the country. Starlink, which is partially owned by Elon Musk, has found itself entangled in the legal battle between X and the Brazilian authorities.
The Brazilian Supreme Court’s decision to limit access to X marks a significant development in the ongoing conflict between the social media platform and the country’s legal system. The implications of this decision on internet freedom and corporate compliance remain to be seen as the situation continues to evolve.