The lawsuit challenges the reach of foreign censorship on US platforms, testing the limits of judicial power beyond national borders
Didi Rankovic
The lawsuit, filed in the US
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, claims that Moraes has
engaged in “ultra vires” (beyond his legal authority) actions to silence
political dissent and force American companies to comply with extraterritorial
gag orders.
We obtained a copy of the
lawsuit for you here.
At the center of the case are
alleged secret directives from Moraes, ordering Rumble to suspend
accounts belonging to a US-based Brazilian political dissident,
identified in the lawsuit as “Political Dissident A.” Moraes’ orders also
prohibit Rumble from allowing the dissident to create new accounts and impose
strict penalties for noncompliance, including daily fines and a potential
shutdown of the platform in Brazil.
According to the complaint,
the orders are an attempt to enforce Brazilian speech restrictions on American
soil. “Justice Moraes has issued sweeping orders to suspend multiple US-based
accounts… ensuring no person in the United States can see [Political Dissident
A’s] content,” the plaintiffs state.
The lawsuit further argues
that these orders “censor legitimate political discourse in the United States,
undermining fundamental constitutional protections enshrined in the First
Amendment.”
Impact on American
Free Speech
Rumble, a Florida-based video
platform, and Truth Social argue that complying with the gag orders would set a
dangerous precedent for foreign censorship influencing American platforms.
“Allowing Justice Moraes to muzzle a vocal user on an American digital outlet would jeopardize our country’s bedrock commitment to open and robust debate,” the lawsuit states.
The companies also allege that
Moraes has ignored international legal frameworks, such as the US-Brazil Mutual
Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT), which provides a formal process for
cross-border legal actions. Instead, they argue, he has resorted to coercive
tactics.
“Rather than submitting a
formal request through proper channels, Justice Moraes issued orders compelling
Rumble, a US-based company with no presence or operations in Brazil, to appoint
local attorneys solely for the purpose of accepting service of his censorship
mandates,” the complaint states.
Broader Concerns Over
Free Speech
Moraes, who has been at the
forefront of Brazil’s controversial “Fake
News Inquiry,” has drawn international criticism for his aggressive
measures against political speech. The lawsuit cites reports that he has
ordered the suspension of nearly 150 accounts belonging to journalists,
legislators, and other critics of Brazil’s government.
The complaint also references
comments made by US Vice President JD Vance at the Munich Security Conference
earlier this month, where he denounced global trends of judicial censorship.
“We know very well in America that you cannot win a democratic mandate by
censoring your opponents or putting them in jail,” Vance stated. The plaintiffs
argue that Moraes’s actions are an example of such overreach.
Rumble and TMTG are asking the
court to declare Moraes’s orders unenforceable in the United States, citing
violations of the First Amendment and the Communications Decency
Act (CDA). The lawsuit argues that enforcing the Brazilian orders would
“compel the suspension of accounts and block entire categories of political
speech,” in direct conflict with US laws protecting online platforms from
liability for user-generated content.
They are also seeking an
injunction to prevent companies like Google and Apple from removing the Rumble
app due to the Brazilian orders. The complaint warns that if tech giants comply
with Moraes’s demands, “the shutdown could intensify, depriving American
service providers like Rumble and platforms like Truth Social of lawful
expression and shutting off millions of US users from robust political debate.”
The case raises significant
questions about the ability of foreign governments to impose censorship rules
on US-based platforms. If successful, the lawsuit could set a legal precedent
reaffirming the limits of international judicial overreach.
Moraes has not publicly
responded to the lawsuit, and it remains unclear whether the Brazilian
government will intervene. However, the plaintiffs argue that this case is
about more than just one dissident—it is about safeguarding American free
speech from foreign interference.
As the complaint puts it:
“Only American law—rooted in the First Amendment—should regulate and govern
these US-based companies and their American operations.”
Justice Alexandre de Moraes
has become a central figure in Brazil’s escalating crackdown on political
dissent, leveraging his position on the Supreme Federal Tribunal (STF) to
implement sweeping censorship measures. Since assuming his post in 2017, following
the death of Justice Teori Zavascki, Moraes has increasingly used his judicial
power to suppress speech he deems “anti-democratic” or “misinformation.”
His aggressive stance on
censorship gained global attention in 2019 when he spearheaded Brazil’s
controversial Fake News Inquiry, an unprecedented investigation that allowed
the STF to unilaterally open cases, bypassing the Public Prosecutor’s Office.
This move drew widespread criticism, with legal scholars and human rights
organizations warning that the STF was acting as both judge and prosecutor,
effectively eroding due process and the separation of powers.
Under Moraes’s watch,
censorship in Brazil has reached alarming new heights. He has issued secret
takedown orders against journalists, conservative politicians, and
social media influencers, forcing platforms like X, YouTube, and Facebook to
remove accounts critical of the Brazilian government. In a 2020 purge, he
mandated the removal of 16 X accounts and 12 Facebook accounts linked to
supporters of former President Jair Bolsonaro, using vague claims of
“disinformation” as justification. By 2022, his censorship efforts had expanded
to include nearly 150 targeted account suspensions, effectively silencing
opposition voices. Moraes has even gone beyond digital suppression—he has
ordered asset freezes, passport revocations, and arrests of individuals accused
of spreading so-called “fake news.”
Over the past year, a significant
conflict has unfolded between Elon Musk’s social media platform,
X, and Justice Moraes. The dispute began when X refused to comply with
Brazilian court orders to block accounts accused of disseminating
misinformation and hate speech, many of which were supporters of former
President Jair Bolsonaro. Moraes responded by imposing substantial daily fines
and, in August 2024, ordered the suspension of X’s operations in Brazil. Musk
publicly criticized Moraes, labeling him an “evil dictator” and accusing him of
undermining democracy.
Despite initial resistance, X
eventually complied with the court’s demands, including removing specified
accounts and paying accumulated fines totaling approximately $4 million. In
October 2024, Justice de Moraes lifted
the suspension, allowing X to resume operations in Brazil.
Didi Rankovic, Reclaim the Net, 19-2-2025
Bolsonaro denunciado: o que acontece agora?
'Lawfare': a estratégia de Alexandre de Moraes para perseguir opositores
18-2-2025: Oeste sem filtro – Defesa de Filipe Martins denuncia à Justiça dos EUA possível fraude + PF pede mais tempo para investigar vazamento de conversas entre assessores de Moraes + Jantar de Lula com ministros do STF é adiado + Grupo Prerrogativas rebate crítica de Kakay a Lula
"A infâmia terá de ser reparada algum dia."
“Deixa de ser cínico, Xico”
17-2-2025: Oeste sem filtro – Defensoria Pública discorda de decisões do Supremo sobre o 8 de janeiro + STF condena família a 12 anos de prisão por participação nos tumultos em Brasília
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário
Não publicamos comentários de anônimos/desconhecidos.
Por favor, se optar por "Anônimo", escreva o seu nome no final do comentário.
Não use CAIXA ALTA, (Não grite!), isto é, não escreva tudo em maiúsculas, escreva normalmente. Obrigado pela sua participação!
Volte sempre!
Abraços./-