Elon Musk’s Starlink broadband service has announced it will not comply with an order to block the X platform, formerly known as Twitter, in Brazil until the government’s freeze on its assets is lifted. This follows a ruling by the Brazilian Supreme Court requiring Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to block the social media site. Starlink, which boasts around 250,000 customers in Brazil, informed the nation’s telecom agency, Anatel, of its decision on Sunday, according to The New York Times.
Last week, Starlink stated that the Brazilian court order had frozen its finances, preventing it from conducting transactions in the country. This, according to Starlink, was based on an unfounded determination that it should be responsible for fines levied against X. The company asserted that this order was unconstitutional and denied it due process guaranteed by Brazilian law.
Starlink’s refusal to block X is aimed at prompting the release of its frozen assets. Elon Musk has also intimated that his companies might seek reciprocal actions against Brazilian government assets if the property isn’t returned. Musk wrote, “unless the Brazilian government returns the illegally seized property of X and SpaceX, we will seek reciprocal seizure of government assets too.”
The conflict dates back several months. Brazilian Supreme Court Judge Alexandre de Moraes ordered the suspension of X on Friday and granted ISPs five days to enforce the block. De Moraes justified the suspension, alleging X’s non-compliance with laws requiring local legal representation and the payment of fines exceeding $3 million, Associated Press reported.
Judge de Moraes has been involved in other controversial rulings which include coercive tactics to enforce court orders, such as threats of imprisonment. His actions have sparked significant debate over free speech boundaries in Brazil. X claims it is not defying Brazilian law but argues that de Moraes’s demands would require them to break the country’s own laws. In August, X even closed its office in Brazil following intense legal pressure. The platform’s stance, represented by its Global Government Affairs account, remains firm: they insist they are not obligated to comply with what they deem illegal orders.
This legal clash signals broader concerns about regulatory overreach and the extent of compliance tech companies owe to different jurisdictions. With both sides entrenched, the situation remains fluid and is being closely watched by tech and legal experts around the world.
For more details, you can read the full article here.