Secret Assets Owners
  • Investing
  • World News
  • Politics
  • Stock
  • Editor’s Pick
Editor's PickInvesting

The Brazilian Judiciary’s Continued Censorship and the Brussels-Brasilia Effect

by August 19, 2024
August 19, 2024

David Inserra

This past weekend (Aug. 17–18), X announced it would close its local offices in Brazil in response to the judiciary’s continued censorial demands. This unprecedented action puts X at direct odds with Justice Alexandre de Moraes of the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court and Superior Electoral Court, who demanded that X comply with his secret censorship orders or else he would jail X’s local staff.

This incident shows how increasing regulation and censorship abroad are negatively affecting Americans and US businesses.

The last time tensions flared between Moraes and X was in April when journalists revealed the vast judicial efforts to investigate, censor, and prosecute social media users for statements critical of the Brazilian government. Citing the need to defend democracy and stop misinformation, these orders were often secret and included high-profile speakers, such as sitting members of Brazil’s National Congress. Other reporting from across the political spectrum questioned Moraes’ arresting of individuals for the wrong political opinions, sometimes without trials. X argued that these orders were illegal under Brazil’s constitution and its Marco Civil da Internet, a law similar to the US’ Section 230 of the Communications Act, which provides platforms with civil liability protection from user-generated content.

At the time, Elon Musk had threatened to refuse to follow such orders but later acquiesced, seemingly recognizing that it would put X employees in danger. This is a position that some other tech companies find themselves in as well and most appear to be complying with such government orders.

But now X is prepared to stand its ground. Over the past few days, Moraes issued yet more secret orders—this time to censor popular accounts including another current member of Congress, and to turn over user data on not only Brazilians but also residents of Argentina and the United States. X refused to comply.

Given that such refusal has already put X at significant risk of growing fines and imprisonment of their personnel, it is possible that the decision to close the local office will lead to even more drastic government threats and penalties. Beyond censoring and jailing political dissidents, Moraes has previously suspended the encrypted communications app, Telegram, for its refusal to take down and turn over information on accounts belonging to Bolsonaro activists. Rumble stopped providing its services to Brazil at the end of 2023 in response to similar judicial orders, largely from Moraes. Trying to shut down X might not be much of a stretch for Moraes.

While only time will tell what comes next, the Brazilian government and judiciary’s increasingly common use of censorship to “protect democracy” is itself a threat to democracy. And its continued overreach may eventually push even more tech companies to decide that they, too, need to protect themselves from the Brazilian authorities.

Unfortunately, Brazil isn’t alone. Other democratic nations, including Canada, Australia, and especially the EU, are considering or have already passed internet speech regulations that are being used to threaten social media companies to comply with various censorial threats. Known as the “Brussels effect” because of the EU’s vast regulatory pressures on tech companies, such regulations not only suppress domestic speech in these countries but are increasingly impacting the speech and success of Americans and US companies.

Americans should be thankful that our First Amendment protects us from such blatant censorship, but we must not be complacent. We must affirm the importance of free expression, reject giving governments around the world the power to censor non-violent speech, and encourage our government to be more vocal in its defense of Americans and American companies facing censorial and abusive regulation abroad.

previous post
Prices and Price Controls: An Introduction
next post
Grocery Price Gouging?

You may also like

Friday Feature: Chesterton Schools Network

November 7, 2025

No Swords, No Subsidies: Let the Market Set...

November 6, 2025

More Evidence on the Minimum Wage

November 6, 2025

Is It the Government’s Job to Make Sure...

November 6, 2025

Homeownership and Wealth: Why Policymakers Should Stop Subsidizing...

November 6, 2025

Tillis Targets Debanking

November 6, 2025

A Double Standard on School Choice

November 5, 2025

Williamson v. United States Brief: Ten Months of...

November 5, 2025

Contra White House Claims, Removing IEEPA Tariffs Won’t...

November 5, 2025

Digging Deeper into School Resource Officers: School Shootings...

November 5, 2025
Join The Exclusive Subscription Today And Get Premium Articles For Free


Your information is secure and your privacy is protected. By opting in you agree to receive emails from us. Remember that you can opt-out any time, we hate spam too!

Recent Posts

  • Iran smuggled $1B to Hezbollah this year despite US sanctions, Treasury official says

    November 9, 2025
  • ‘Genocide can’t be ignored’: GOP lawmaker backs Trump’s threat of military action in Nigeria

    November 9, 2025
  • TEVI TROY: Celebrating 50 years of presidential mockery

    November 9, 2025
  • Reckoning looms for politicians as longest government shutdown persists

    November 9, 2025
  • Senate could take test vote on new spending bill as early as Sunday afternoon

    November 9, 2025
  • About us
  • Contact us
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 SecretAssetsOwners.com All Rights Reserved.


Back To Top
Secret Assets Owners
  • Investing
  • World News
  • Politics
  • Stock
  • Editor’s Pick