Media platform X on Saturday, announced it would suspend its operations in Brazil “effective immediately” due to what it described as “censorship orders” from Brazilian judge Alexandre de Moraes. X, which is owned by billionaire Elon Musk, alleges that Moraes secretly threatened one of the company’s legal representatives in Brazil with arrest if it did not adhere to legal orders to remove certain content from its platform.
The social media giant shared images of a document purportedly signed by Moraes, indicating that a daily fine of 20,000 reais ($3,653) and an arrest order would be imposed on X representative Rachel Nova Conceicao if the platform did not fully adhere to Moraes’ directives.
“To protect the safety of our staff, we have made the decision to close our operation in Brazil, effective immediately,” X said.
Brazil’s Supreme Court, where Moraes serves, told Reuters it would not comment on the issue and would neither confirm nor deny the authenticity of the document shared by X. The platform stated on Saturday that the X service remains available to the people of Brazil. Earlier this year, Moraes instructed X to block specific accounts while investigating alleged “digital militias” accused of spreading fake news and hate messages during the administration of far-right former President Jair Bolsonaro.
Earlier this year, Moraes initiated an inquiry into the billionaire after Musk announced he would reinstate accounts on X that Moraes had ordered to be blocked.
Musk has labeled Moraes’ decisions concerning X as “unconstitutional.” In response to Musk’s objections, X representatives later informed Brazil’s Supreme Court that the social media giant would adhere to the legal rulings.
In April, lawyers representing X in Brazil told the Supreme Court that “operational faults” had permitted users who were supposed to be blocked to remain active on the platform, following Moraes’ request for an explanation as to why X allegedly had not fully complied with his orders.
In posts on X on Saturday, Musk described Moraes as an “utter disgrace to justice” and stated that the company could not comply with the judge’s for “secret censorship and private information handover demands.”
