Table of Contents
Last Wednesday (17), the Judiciary Committee of the United States House of Representatives released a series of confidential documents, exposing Moraes' decisions under the secrecy of the Federal Supreme Court (STF). These documents, which detail the authorization for the removal of approximately 150 profiles on the platform, formerly Twitter, came to light following a legal subpoena to the company, now under the leadership of Elon Musk. Representatives from the Republican Party pointed out the lack of complete justification in many of Moraes' court orders, and alleged censorship by the Brazilian government on digital platforms.
The report includes 88 decisions from the STF and the Superior Electoral Court (TSE) related to the removal of profiles, the majority of which were issued by Alexandre de Moraes in confidential processes. Elon Musk, who recently criticized Moraes, accused him of acting like a “dictator” and violating Brazilian laws by threatening to release these documents.
Disclosure of Alexandre de Moraes' judicial decisions
The Judiciary Committee of the US House of Representatives, under the leadership of Republican congressman and Donald Trump enthusiast, Jim Jordan, recently released a report titled The attack on freedom of expression abroad and the silence of the Biden administration: the case of Brazil. The document criticizes the actions of certain governments which, according to him, are eroding essential democratic values and limiting free discussion in their territories.
Moraes' decisions in Brazil are based on preventing the spread of false or harmful information. However, the exposure of these documents in the United States generated an intense debate about the limits of censorship and regulation of digital content and Republican parliamentarians argue that such practices could compromise freedom of expression.
According to a statement from the Commission, the report contains “copies of 28 decisions in English and Portuguese given by Minister Alexandre de Moraes and addressed to X Corp“; There are also "23 decisions by Moraes without translation into English"and "37 decisions of the Superior Electoral Court (TSE)“. It is worth remembering that Moraes has been president of the TSE since August 2022.
Republicans argue that the report “reveals a campaign of censorship by Brazil and presents an alarming case for how a government can justify censorship under the pretext of combating 'hate speech' and 'subversion' of order.”
They also highlight that the “Brazilian government” would be “pressuring X and other social networks to censor more than 300 accounts, including those of prominent figures such as Jair Messias Bolsonaro, senator Marcos do Val (Podemos-ES) and journalist Paulo Figueiredo“. Despite the allegations, Bolsonaro maintains his profiles active on major social media platforms.
After the criticism, Moraes defended the regulation of digital platforms in Brazil during a session at the National Congress, on Wednesday (17). He highlighted the importance of updating regulations to address new contractual realities, modern customs, updated family structures and emerging issues such as technology and artificial intelligence. Moraes, with a touch of humor, commented:
At the beginning of this century, social networks did not exist. We were happy and we didn't know it.
Alexandre de Moraes
Elon Musk's reaction
Elon Musk's reaction to the STF's decisions was strong opposition. Musk used his platform, X, to express his discontent and accuse the minister of violating democratic principles and Brazilian legislation. The CEO of X emphasized that the court orders contradict freedom of expression and threatened to disclose details of the court orders to support his accusations.
In addition to the criticism, Musk promised to take extreme actions, such as closing X's operations in Brazil. These statements heightened the debate about the impact that an executive from a large digital company can have on national governance and freedom of expression.
Musk's demonstrations generated wide discussion about the limits of judicial interference in digital content and the power of large technology companies in confronting such measures. The controversy has also raised questions about the effectiveness of digital media control laws and the protection of civil rights in an increasingly digitized and globalized environment.
The dispute between Elon Musk and Alexandre de Moraes began on April 6, when Musk posted harsh criticisms of the judge and threatened to close down X's operations in Brazil.
Soon, X will reveal all of Alexandre de Moraes' demands and how these requests contradict Brazilian legislation. This judge blatantly and repeatedly violated the Constitution and the rights of the Brazilian people. He should resign or be removed. Shame, Alexandre, shame.
Elon Musk
Before these comments, the billionaire had already said that he would disobey the restrictions imposed by the Brazilian courts on several profiles on the network.
Shortly after Musk's publications, Moraes included the owner of In his decision, released on the 7th, Moraes stated that he was
It is unacceptable for any representative of social networks, especially the former Twitter, now 'X', to ignore the criminal use that has been made by so-called digital militias in the dissemination, propagation and expansion of illicit practices on social networks.
Alexandre de Moraes
Legal and political implications
Several profiles associated with public figures were deactivated on orders from Minister Alexandre de Moraes. Among them are profiles linked to the businessman Luciano Hang, from Lojas Havan; to bloggers Allan Santos e Oswaldo Eustáquio; to former federal deputy Daniel Silverira, previously revoked; to youtuber Monarch; and the former federal deputy Robert Jefferson. The accusations against these individuals range from the spread of false information about electoral fraud to attacks on the STF and the defense of authoritarian measures, such as the reissue of the AI-5, especially in the case of Silveira.
Figures such as journalists Bernardo Kuster e Paulo Figueiredo were accused of instigating followers of Jair Bolsonaro to “destabilize the democratic order”. On January 8, 2023, Bolsonaro supporters vandalized the headquarters of Congress, the STF and the Palácio do Planalto, in Brasília.
Musk also called Moraes a “dictator” and criticized his relationship with President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. More recently, he reaffirmed that the magistrate imposes demands that would violate Brazilian laws. Platform X, in turn, claimed to have been compelled to block some popular accounts without clear understanding of the reasons behind the court orders.
These texts, common in several decisions, define a two-hour deadline for removing profiles and stipulate a daily fine of R$100. They also require the sending of account registration data to the STF and the preservation of the posted content for future consultation:
Given the confidential nature of these processes, necessary measures must be taken to maintain confidentiality.
Moraes' actions, taken over the last four years, are part of the investigations into digital militias and the fake news inquiry, which aims to curb the spread of false information and hate speech that can threaten democratic institutions and democracy itself.
Debate on freedom of expression
During the session of the Federal Supreme Court (STF) on April 10, Moraes addressed the incident highlighting the distinction between “freedom of expression” and “freedom of offense”.
I am fully convinced that the Federal Supreme Court, Brazilian society and upstanding citizens understand that freedom of expression does not equate to freedom of offense. They understand that freedom of expression is not permission to spread hatred, racism, misogyny or homophobia. They understand that freedom of expression is not an endorsement to support tyranny. Some outsiders may not know this, but they are beginning to realize and have become aware of the courage and seriousness of the Brazilian Judiciary.
Alexandre de Moraes
The previous week, the president of the STF, Luis Roberto Barroso, attempted to end the controversy by declaring that the matter was “finalized.”
But the debate over free speech has gained prominence, illustrating the fine line between national security and civil rights. The measures taken, justified by the need to combat disinformation and protect the democratic order, could be seen as oppressive if not carefully balanced with the protection of freedom of expression.
The case also reinforces the importance of collaboration between international jurisdictions in establishing standards that respect both local sovereignty and international human rights standards, ensuring that freedom of expression is not unfairly compromised in the name of security.
See also:
Source: InfoMoney, Terra, Band News
Text proofread by: Pedro Bomfim
Discover more about Showmetech
Sign up to receive our latest news via email.
