X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, is bracing for a potential ban in Brazil after failing to meet a court-ordered deadline to appoint a new legal representative. The deadline, set by Supreme Court Judge Alexandre de Moraes, passed on Thursday evening without X complying with the order.
The dispute began earlier this year when Judge de Moraes ordered the suspension of several X accounts accused of spreading disinformation. The accounts in question were primarily linked to supporters of former President Jair Bolsonaro. In response, X owner Elon Musk criticized the judge, calling him a “tyrant” and “dictator,” and threatened to reactivate the suspended accounts.
Justice de Moraes had given X a 24-hour ultimatum to name a new legal representative or face suspension. The order also included a requirement for X to pay fines for alleged violations of Brazilian law. As the deadline passed, X issued a statement indicating that it had not complied with the order, accusing the judge of demanding the company break Brazilian laws.
“Soon, we expect Judge Alexandre de Moraes will order X to be shut down in Brazil – simply because we would not comply with his illegal orders to censor his political opponents,” X said in a post. The company emphasized its refusal to “comply in secret with illegal orders” and promised to publish the judge’s demands for transparency.
The situation has escalated as Brazilian authorities have also frozen the bank accounts of SpaceX’s satellite internet firm, Starlink, which is linked to Musk. Starlink has reacted by claiming that the freeze is based on an “unfounded determination” and stressed that it is separate from X.
Justice de Moraes is known for his decisions to restrict social media platforms in Brazil and is currently investigating Bolsonaro and his supporters over their alleged involvement in a failed coup attempt on January 8, 2023.
X’s potential ban highlights ongoing tensions between social media companies and governmental authorities over content moderation and legal compliance. The company’s refusal to adhere to the court’s demands could set a significant precedent for how international platforms navigate local laws and judicial orders.
