X blocked in Brazil: when a social media platform opposes the rule of law
The Brazilian Supreme Court's decision to block access to the social media platform X (formerly Twitter) is a radical reminder that no one is above the law. The ruling comes as no surprise, as X deliberately ignored requests from the Brazilian courts for months. Given social media’s role in the spread of disinformation, no democracy can afford to allow these platforms to shirk their legal obligations.
It was the inevitable outcome of a conflict that has been raging for months: on 2 September, the first panel of the Brazilian Supreme Court confirmed Judge Alexandre de Moraes’ decision to block the social media platform X. The decision was taken after X refused to comply with Brazilian regulations requiring platforms to block accounts at the request of the supreme court and to appoint a legal representative in Brazil, despite multiple warnings from the Court.
While blocking X is a loss as the platform is widely used in the journalism industry, RSF believes the decision is justified given the platform's constant refusal to respond to repeated requests from the authorities to comply with the law. On several occasions, X was ordered to block accounts that contributed to massive disinformation campaigns aiming to destabilise the country's democratic institutions.
"The role that platforms have defined for themselves in the information space does not give them the right to behave irresponsibly. We must not show weakness when they try to bypass the laws of democratic societies. Their obvious unwillingness to prevent the propagation of false, misleading and propagandistic content and their insufficient cooperation with national regulators threatens information reliability and the stability of democracies. They must be held accountable if they fail to meet their obligations. Blocking the platform is a last resort, given X’s refusal to comply with the law. There is, of course, the argument that the system currently governing platforms in Brazil deserves to be reformed, but that in no way authorises Elon Musk to take the law into his own hands."
X knows the exact procedure to end the ban: block the accounts identified by the Supreme Court — or follow the appeal process if they disagree — pay the fines, appoint a legal representative and resume dialogue with the Supreme Court.
In previous cases where X accounts were blocked by Brazilian courts, X appointed lawyers in Brazil to appeal against the decisions. There is, therefore, a deliberate desire on X's part to clash with the Supreme Court and the judge hearing this case, Alexandre de Moraes, who is also hearing cases against former president Jair Bolsonaro, a supporter and admirer of Elon Musk, X’s owner. Musk had already announced his opposition to the Brazilian Supreme Court’s request to freeze X accounts, which exacerbated tensions with local authorities. Musk, who has deliberately chosen to disregard Brazil’s legal framework, now invokes “free speech” as an excuse to challenge the ban of his platform.
Regulations need to be strengthened
This Supreme Court case has been criticized for its lack of transparency, procedural problems and the indefinite period for which accounts have been blocked. These shortcomings could justify legal recourse, but not deliberate non-compliance. The definitive solution to the abusive use of social media, however, is to strengthen the laws governing digital platforms. RSF reiterates its call to Brazilian legislators to introduce appropriate regulation.
