It is simple to get distracted by the barbs, jabs and noise of ongoing and really public dispute between the richest man on the earth and a merciless justice system in Brazil's highest court. Elon Musk, the billionaire and owner of X, usually posts his contempt for Supreme Court Judge Alexandre de Moraes – a person whom Musk has known as “dictator”” And “Brazil's Darth Vader.” He makes these comments on a social media platform that Moraes has banned in Latin America's most populous country as a part of a long-running campaign against disinformation.
But as Expert in Brazilian digital lawI see this as greater than only a bitter personal feud. X's legal battle with Brazil's Supreme Court raises necessary questions on platform regulation and the way to combat disinformation while protecting freedom of expression. And while the main focus is on Brazil and Musk, it's a debate that reverberates all over the world.
Countdown to the massive fight
In August 2024, the situation between Musk and Moraes got here to a head, but this battle had been brewing for years.
In 2014, Brazil adopted the “Civil rights framework for the Internet” or the “Internet Bill of Rights” because it is often known. This bipartisan framework for Internet regulation outlined principles to guard user privacy and free speech while Introducing penalties for platforms that violate the principles.
It included a system of “judicial notice and takedown” whereby web platforms would only be held chargeable for harmful user-generated content in the event that they did not remove the content after receiving a court order to achieve this.
The approach should strike a balance between protecting free expression and removing illegal and harmful content. It prevents social media platforms, messaging apps and online forums from being robotically held answerable for users' posts and empowers courts to intervene when vital.
However, the 2014 law doesn’t provide detailed rules for content moderation and leaves much of the responsibility within the hands of platforms equivalent to Facebook and X.
And the rise of disinformation lately, especially concerning the 2022 Brazilian presidential electionshas shown the constraints of the framework.
The then President Right-wing populist Jair Bolsonaroand his followers were accused of using social media platforms like X to Spreading untruthssow doubts concerning the integrity of the Brazilian electoral system and fuel violence. When Bolsonaro defeated within the vote by the leftist Luiz Inácio Lula da Silvaa web based campaign of election denial flourished. culminated within the storming on January 8, 2023 of the Brazilian Congress, the Supreme Court and the Presidential Palace by Bolsonaro’s supporters – an event similar the riots within the US Capitol two years earlier.
The fight becomes personal…
In response to the disinformation campaigns and attacks, Brazil’s Supreme Court launched two investigations – the Investigation into digital militias and the Anti-Democratic Acts Investigation – to analyze the groups involved within the plot.
As a part of these investigations, the Supreme Court ordered social media platforms – equivalent to Facebook, Instagram and X – handy over IP addresses and block accounts linked to those illegal activities.
But now Musk, who describes himself as Fundamentalist of free speechhad acquired the platform and promised to support free speech, restore suspended accounts, and significantly calm down the platform's content moderation policies.
Ton Molina/AFP via Getty Images
As a result, Musk has been openly defying the Supreme Court's orders for the reason that starting. In April 2024, X's global government affairs The team began informing the general public about what they considered to be the Supreme Court’s “illegal” demands.
The dispute escalated in late August when X’s legal representative in Brazil resigned and Musk refused to appoint a brand new legal representative – a move that Moraes interpreted as an attempt to avoid the law. In response ordered the ban of the platform on August 31, 2024.
The move got here with heavy penalties for Brazilians trying to avoid the ban. Anyone using virtual private networks, or VPNs, to access X will face each day fines of nearly $9,000 – greater than the common annual income of many Brazilians. These decisions were confirmed by a panel of 5 Supreme Court judges on September 2, 2024. However, given criticism of the judiciary's overstepping of powers, the plenary of 11 judges will debate and possibly reconsider this a part of Moraes' decision.
… then becomes political
The battle between X and Brazil on the Supreme Court is deeply politicized. On September 7 Thousands of Bolsonaro supporters took part in a protest for freedom of expression. Lula's government and the Supreme Court have come under fire, with the opposition and right-wing factions calling the suspension of the platform a Symbol of state abuse.
This rhetoric stands in sharp contrast to the more balanced, deliberate efforts to control platforms that began over a decade ago with the Marco Civil da Internet. It also underscores the challenge of striking a balance between free expression and combating disinformation in a deeply polarized environment—an issue that Brazil is much from alone in facing.
The political pressure surrounding the ban on X doesn’t bode well for Brazil's ongoing efforts to counter online disinformation and hold platforms accountable for harmful content.
“Bill on fake news”, because it is known as by the Brazilian media, was introduced by the country’s Congress in 2020. It goals to create control mechanisms and increase transparency regarding political promoting and content moderation policies.
But despite good intentions and a really relaxed approach to “regulated self-regulation,” the ultimate version of the bill was blocked within the Brazilian Parliament after three years of debate.
It follows a campaign by right-wing politicians and Lobbyists of the foremost technology corporations who described the law as “Censorship law”, arguing that it could impair free speech and stifle political discourse. At this point, the fate of the bill seems uncertain.
Meanwhile, on August 23, The Supreme Court announced that a legal review to be held in November will address two key parts of the Marco Civil case.
The first is the Legal Notice and Takedown procedure, which Critics complain is just too slow and allows platforms to opt out of implementing more robust content moderation mechanisms. Proponents maintain that judicial oversight is vital to forestall platforms from arbitrarily removing content, which may lead to censorship.
The second area under review is the a part of the Marco Civil that sets the penalties for corporations that don’t comply with the principles. The debate revolves around whether the present penalties, particularly the suspension of services, are proportionate and constitutional. Critics argue that blocking a complete platform constitutes a violation of users’ rights to freedom of expression and access to information, while supporters insist that it’s a vital tool to make sure compliance with Brazilian laws and preserve sovereignty.
The fate of the “fake news law” and the Supreme Court’s review could set latest legal standards for platforms in Brazil and determine how far the country can go in enforcing its laws against global technology corporations to combat disinformation.
And while the Supreme Court did circuitously link the review to the continued feud with X, the fight with Musk provides the inevitable political backdrop to discussions concerning the future direction of Brazil's experiment in platform regulation. The fallout from this seemingly personal dispute could subsequently have significant regulatory consequences for Brazil and potentially other countries as well.
image credit : theconversation.com