Supporters of former Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro protesting against judge Alexandre de Moraes, who ordered the suspension of X, in Sao Paulo, Brazil on September 7.
| Photo Credit: REUTERS

The story so far: Brazil’s Supreme Court on August 30 ordered the “immediate, complete and total suspension of X’s operations” in the country. Justice Alexandre de Moraes took the decision after X failed to appoint a legal representative in Brazil within the stipulated time. Mr. Moraes also ordered that anyone found accessing X using a VPN (Virtual Private Network) would have to pay a fine of 50,000 reals per day.

Also Read: Brazilian Judge Alexandre de Moraes suspends Elon Musk’s X platform after it refuses to name a legal representative

What is the background?

For nearly two years, Mr. Moraes has been probing what he calls “digital militias” — far-right groups and backers of Brazil’s erstwhile President Jair Bolsonaro. When Mr. Bolsonaro lost the 2022 elections, these groups used X and other platforms to cast doubt on the integrity of the elections and incite violence, leading to the January 8, 2023 riots in the capital Brasilia when Bolsonaro’s supporters attacked federal buildings, including the Supreme Court, with the aim of triggering a military coup. The Court viewed this as a direct attack on Brazilian democracy and asked Mr. Moraes to investigate it. As his probe progressed, Mr. Moraes ordered X to suspend scores of accounts for spreading disinformation and hand over information about them, including IP addresses, to aid in prosecution.

What was X’s response?

Elon Musk, the billionaire owner of X, refused to comply with Mr. Moraes’s demands, and even said that accounts suspended earlier would be reactivated. In April, Mr. Moraes responded by bringing Mr. Musk under the purview of his investigation, triggering a public arm wrestle with the billionaire tycoon.

Also Read: How Elon Musk’s X could be suspended by one Brazilian judge in the coming hours

X also claimed that Mr. Moraes had threatened its legal representative in Brazil with arrest and ordered a daily fine of 20,000 reals ($3,580) for non-compliance. On August 17, Musk announced on X that rather than comply with the judicial orders, he had decided “to close our operation in Brazil, effective immediately.” While X’s offices were shut down, its services remained available in the country. In the face of X’s continued defiance, and as the fines remained unpaid, Mr. Moraes gave an ultimatum of 24 hours for X to appoint a legal representative — a requirement for any company operating in Brazil. X ignored this demand, and once the deadline passed, Mr. Moraes ordered suspension of X until all court orders are complied.

What are the implications?

The refusal by X, a foreign company in Brazil, to obey local laws have raised important questions about regulatory sovereignty, the right mechanisms for curbing disinformation, free speech rights versus censorship, and cross-border internet governance. It has also flagged how social media can be weaponised for political purposes — with earlier Facebook in the U.S., and now X in Brazil coming under investigations for promoting incendiary far-right disinformation. Analysts have pointed out the Brazilian case is more complicated by the fact that X’s owner, Elon Musk, has not only aligned himself with one political faction and politician, Mr. Bolsonaro, but has also been posting vituperative remarks against one of the country’s top judicial officers.

Within Brazil, one stream of thought, especially on the right, considers Mr. Moraes’ orders as an instance of judicial overreach. Others have acknowledged that his actions stem from a broad interpretation of judicial powers rather than specific legal provisions. But they believe that his draconian measures were required at a time when other institutions have failed to counter the serious attacks on Brazilian democracy.

How has the order panned out so far?

Starlink, another Musk-owned company that provides satellite internet service in large parts of Brazil, initially refused to block X, but caved in subsequently after the Supreme Court ordered its bank accounts to be frozen. Clearing the air on whether the ban was an individualistic act of one radical judge, five justices of the Supreme Court have voted to endorse the ban. As for ordinary Brazilians, a great number of them migrated to Bluesky, which claimed that it had gained 2.6 million new users within five days of X going offline. Most users and analysts, however, consider the fine of 50,000 reals for accessing X via VPN excessive.