Starlink Complies with Brazil's Court Order to Block X After Initial Defiance

[Social Media]

 

Starlink, the satellite broadband company owned by Elon Musk, has announced its compliance with an order from Brazil's top court to block access to the social media platform X in the country. This development comes after a brief period of defiance in which the company informed Brazil's telecom regulator, Anatel, that it would not obey the order. However, Starlink has now backtracked, stating that despite what it describes as the illegal freezing of its assets, it will follow through with the court's directive.

 

The conflict between Starlink and Brazil escalated when Supreme Court Judge Alexandre de Moraes ordered the freezing of Starlink's accounts, which could potentially be used to pay fines owed by X, another company owned by Musk. Starlink, which has more than 200,000 customers in Brazil, responded with a statement on the platform X, saying, "Regardless of the illegal treatment of Starlink in freezing of our assets, we are complying with the order to block access to X in Brazil."

 

On Monday, Anatel had been notified by Starlink that the company did not intend to comply with Judge Moraes' order, which required all internet providers in Brazil to block domestic access to X. However, by Tuesday, Starlink had reversed its stance and informed Anatel that it would comply with the order within hours. Anatel has since verified that Starlink has begun cutting access to X in Brazil.

 

The platform X has been blocked in Brazil since last week, following Judge Moraes' order that all telecom providers in the country shut down access due to the platform's lack of a legal representative in Brazil. This decision was later upheld by a panel of Supreme Court justices. In response, Starlink has initiated legal proceedings in the Brazilian Supreme Court, arguing the "gross illegality" of Moraes' order, which not only froze the company's finances but also prevents it from conducting financial transactions in the country.

 

Starlink has stated that it will continue to explore all legal avenues available to it, joining others who believe that Judge Moraes' recent orders "violate the Brazilian constitution." However, a court document revealed that Starlink missed the deadline to present a new appeal against the decision to freeze its accounts. It remains unclear what legal instrument the company will use to challenge the freezing of its assets.

 

The origins of the dispute trace back to an earlier order by Judge Moraes requiring the platform X to block accounts involved in investigations related to the spread of distorted news and hate messages. Musk has publicly criticized this order, labeling it as censorship. In response, Musk closed X's offices in Brazil in mid-August, although the platform remained accessible in the country until Moraes' latest shutdown order.

 

Despite the official block, some Brazilians continue to access the platform using VPNs and other methods. The situation highlights the ongoing tension between Musk's companies and Brazilian authorities, as well as the broader debate over the balance between free speech and the regulation of online content.

 

Credit: Reuters 2024-09-05

 

 

 

Get the ASEAN NOW daily NEWSLETTER - Click HERE to subscribe

[spidermike007]

Musk is a rather fascinating human being, and he does seem to think that he's above the law. I guess many people with his level of power and wealth would. It's kind of fun to watch an authority reigning him in and compelling him to behave in a lawful manner. As we can see from his post he does not like being told what to do. Ha! 

[john donson]

free speech is dead... hope they know how to use VPN

 

what right does a government have to forbid their people to use a legal service...

 

fascisism

[James105]

On 9/5/2024 at 12:18 PM, spidermike007 said:

Musk is a rather fascinating human being, and he does seem to think that he's above the law. I guess many people with his level of power and wealth would. It's kind of fun to watch an authority reigning him in and compelling him to behave in a lawful manner. As we can see from his post he does not like being told what to do. Ha! 

 

Interesting you see Musk as the wrongdoer here.   Most who have read anything by Orwell would typically observe that it is the government that is censoring political opinion from its citizens as the (very) problematic entity here.   

[Yellowtail]

Only the left is above the law

[spidermike007]

2 minutes ago, James105 said:

 

Interesting you see Musk as the wrongdoer here.   Most who have read anything by Orwell would typically observe that it is the government that is censoring political opinion from its citizens as the (very) problematic entity here.   

That is what Musk would have you believe. His motivations are rarely altruistic. 

 

Regardless of Musk’s motivations, the political impact of his actions in Brazil has been immediate and explosive: Those worried about the “tyranny” of the judges (i.e., the Bolsonaro side), greeted his move as if he was saving the country from oppression. Those on the opposite aisle (i.e., the government) see an unacceptable attack on Brazil’s sovereignty and proof that social media needs to be heavily regulated.

 

And one immediate upshot is that attempts to build a modern legal framework for tech platforms will continue to be postponed in a congress that now has another reason to disagree over a fiendishly complex topic.

 

That’s why Musk was wrong to pick this fight: speaking lightly about a country he knows only superficially and attacking a judge whose surname he can’t even pronounce properly have all been a disservice to Brazil that will only amplify polarization and political discord. If Brazil is not for beginners, Brazilian politics is only for the truly gifted. (Incidentally, would Musk dare to bash a US Supreme Court judge using the same tone he used against Justice de Moraes knowing that he won’t be protected by being in a different jurisdiction?)

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-04-10/elon-musk-picked-the-wrong-fight-in-brazil

 

[Yellowtail]

5 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

That is what Musk would have you believe. His motivations are rarely altruistic. 

 

Regardless of Musk’s motivations, the political impact of his actions in Brazil has been immediate and explosive: Those worried about the “tyranny” of the judges (i.e., the Bolsonaro side), greeted his move as if he was saving the country from oppression. Those on the opposite aisle (i.e., the government) see an unacceptable attack on Brazil’s sovereignty and proof that social media needs to be heavily regulated.

 

And one immediate upshot is that attempts to build a modern legal framework for tech platforms will continue to be postponed in a congress that now has another reason to disagree over a fiendishly complex topic.

 

That’s why Musk was wrong to pick this fight: speaking lightly about a country he knows only superficially and attacking a judge whose surname he can’t even pronounce properly have all been a disservice to Brazil that will only amplify polarization and political discord. If Brazil is not for beginners, Brazilian politics is only for the truly gifted. (Incidentally, would Musk dare to bash a US Supreme Court judge using the same tone he used against Justice de Moraes knowing that he won’t be protected by being in a different jurisdiction?)

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-04-10/elon-musk-picked-the-wrong-fight-in-brazil

 

I imagine he would. 

 

Have you not heard the way people talk about US Supreme Court Justices they dissagree with in the US? 

 

Does the government deciding what is true not scare you? 

[James105]

8 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

That is what Musk would have you believe. His motivations are rarely altruistic. 

 

Regardless of Musk’s motivations, the political impact of his actions in Brazil has been immediate and explosive: Those worried about the “tyranny” of the judges (i.e., the Bolsonaro side), greeted his move as if he was saving the country from oppression. Those on the opposite aisle (i.e., the government) see an unacceptable attack on Brazil’s sovereignty and proof that social media needs to be heavily regulated.

 

And one immediate upshot is that attempts to build a modern legal framework for tech platforms will continue to be postponed in a congress that now has another reason to disagree over a fiendishly complex topic.

 

That’s why Musk was wrong to pick this fight: speaking lightly about a country he knows only superficially and attacking a judge whose surname he can’t even pronounce properly have all been a disservice to Brazil that will only amplify polarization and political discord. If Brazil is not for beginners, Brazilian politics is only for the truly gifted. (Incidentally, would Musk dare to bash a US Supreme Court judge using the same tone he used against Justice de Moraes knowing that he won’t be protected by being in a different jurisdiction?)

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-04-10/elon-musk-picked-the-wrong-fight-in-brazil

 

 

Every time a government takes away someones rights there are always those who side with them - I think the term is "useful idiots".   I presume if you think that speech needs to be heavily regulated you would be able to come up with at least one example in history where this has worked out well for the citizens of the regimes where this was imposed on them?  

[spidermike007]

16 minutes ago, James105 said:

 

Every time a government takes away someones rights there are always those who side with them - I think the term is "useful idiots".   I presume if you think that speech needs to be heavily regulated you would be able to come up with at least one example in history where this has worked out well for the citizens of the regimes where this was imposed on them?  

Yes. I could come up with a dozen. One that comes to mind, is anytime the government interferes and shuts down hate speech, or foreign interference in an election, it is always beneficial to the public. 

[James105]

21 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Yes. I could come up with a dozen. One that comes to mind, is anytime the government interferes and shuts down hate speech, or foreign interference in an election, it is always beneficial to the public. 

 

No need for a dozen just one example of country will do as I can only think of examples where government censorship has led to tyranny, such as China, Russia, Nazi-ism, North Korea etc.   Just one where it didn't lead to tyranny that you can point to will do.  Just one.  

[spidermike007]

5 minutes ago, James105 said:

 

No need for a dozen just one example of country will do as I can only think of examples where government censorship has led to tyranny, such as China, Russia, Nazi-ism, North Korea etc.   Just one where it didn't lead to tyranny that you can point to will do.  Just one.  

One of the main cases for internet censorship is that it protects children from accessing harmful and inappropriate information, such as footage of real murders or terrorist decapitations.

 

Internet censorship offers a means of limiting the number of harmful videos or other forms of offensive content that people, including your children, have access to. In simple terms, internet censorship provides a tool to limit access or even block access to content that can cause irreparable harm.

 

Proponents of censorship also argue that it restricts the chances for predators to easily find targets. But while internet censorship regulations have lofty goals, dangerous people often find ways to defeat even the most well-meaning laws.

 

Harassment and cyberbullying are serious problems online today. Among the many internet censorship pros and cons is a limit on content that could be offensive, aggressive or threatening toward others. Censorship can counteract the anonymity that fuels cyberbullying and harassment. 

 

This is especially true on websites made for children and teens, as well as minority groups who may be disproportionately targeted by online harassment. Censorship can help everyone use the internet without being personally attacked or insulted by others. 

 

Censorship isn’t always about preventing people from sharing their unfiltered opinions. Among the many pros and cons of internet censorship is the practical benefit of limiting the spread of sensitive information. 

 

For instance, a scammer might try to trick someone into posting their social security number online, but the website’s censorship algorithm stops the post from going live. Situations like this are increasingly common today. 

 

Shall I go on? You have obviously not devoted much thought to this. 

[Yellowtail]

25 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

One of the main cases for internet censorship is that it protects children from accessing harmful and inappropriate information, such as footage of real murders or terrorist decapitations.

 

Internet censorship offers a means of limiting the number of harmful videos or other forms of offensive content that people, including your children, have access to. In simple terms, internet censorship provides a tool to limit access or even block access to content that can cause irreparable harm.

 

Proponents of censorship also argue that it restricts the chances for predators to easily find targets. But while internet censorship regulations have lofty goals, dangerous people often find ways to defeat even the most well-meaning laws.

 

Harassment and cyberbullying are serious problems online today. Among the many internet censorship pros and cons is a limit on content that could be offensive, aggressive or threatening toward others. Censorship can counteract the anonymity that fuels cyberbullying and harassment. 

 

This is especially true on websites made for children and teens, as well as minority groups who may be disproportionately targeted by online harassment. Censorship can help everyone use the internet without being personally attacked or insulted by others. 

 

Censorship isn’t always about preventing people from sharing their unfiltered opinions. Among the many pros and cons of internet censorship is the practical benefit of limiting the spread of sensitive information. 

 

For instance, a scammer might try to trick someone into posting their social security number online, but the website’s censorship algorithm stops the post from going live. Situations like this are increasingly common today. 

 

Shall I go on? You have obviously not devoted much thought to this. 

Why not just list a few of the dozen countries you claimed you could come up with? 

[James105]

1 hour ago, spidermike007 said:

One of the main cases for internet censorship is that it protects children from accessing harmful and inappropriate information, such as footage of real murders or terrorist decapitations.

 

Internet censorship offers a means of limiting the number of harmful videos or other forms of offensive content that people, including your children, have access to. In simple terms, internet censorship provides a tool to limit access or even block access to content that can cause irreparable harm.

 

Proponents of censorship also argue that it restricts the chances for predators to easily find targets. But while internet censorship regulations have lofty goals, dangerous people often find ways to defeat even the most well-meaning laws.

 

Harassment and cyberbullying are serious problems online today. Among the many internet censorship pros and cons is a limit on content that could be offensive, aggressive or threatening toward others. Censorship can counteract the anonymity that fuels cyberbullying and harassment. 

 

This is especially true on websites made for children and teens, as well as minority groups who may be disproportionately targeted by online harassment. Censorship can help everyone use the internet without being personally attacked or insulted by others. 

 

Censorship isn’t always about preventing people from sharing their unfiltered opinions. Among the many pros and cons of internet censorship is the practical benefit of limiting the spread of sensitive information. 

 

For instance, a scammer might try to trick someone into posting their social security number online, but the website’s censorship algorithm stops the post from going live. Situations like this are increasingly common today. 

 

Shall I go on? You have obviously not devoted much thought to this. 

 

Is that what is happening in Brazil?  My understanding is that X refused to censor supporters of political opponents so not quite the same as protecting children from harm is it?  

 

You did say that you could name a dozen countries that benefitted their citizens by restricting/regulating their speech.   Any chance you can name just one of them?   

Edited September 8 by James105

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, James105 said:

 

Is that what is happening in Brazil?  My understanding is that X refused to censor supporters of political opponents so not quite the same as protecting children from harm is it?  

 

You did say that you could name dozens of countries that benefitted their citizens by restricting/regulating their speech.   Any chance you can name just one of them?   

There are always too many to list for these guys to come up with one.