Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Brazilian Judge Orders Global Deletion of X Posts in Civil Defamation Cases, Rejects Geoblocking as Insufficient

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | September 10, 2025

A Brazilian judge’s order demanding that posts on X be erased not just within Brazil but across the entire globe has caused concerns over national courts asserting control over international online speech.

The ruling, handed down by Judge Jeferson Isidoro Mafra in Blumenau, Santa Catarina, orders the platform to delete specific content worldwide, regardless of whether it violates laws in other countries.

The platform’s Global Government Affairs team publicly criticized the decision, calling it a direct threat to global freedom of expression.

“This means that even if the content is not unlawful in other countries, the Brazilian judiciary believes it has the power to issue orders that extend beyond its own jurisdiction and reach the entire world,” the statement read.

X also pointed out that the ruling runs counter to international law, which restricts a nation’s legal reach to its own territory. “This contradicts a basic principle of international law that limits jurisdiction to national territory and puts global freedom of expression at risk,” the platform added.

The ruling stems from two lawsuits filed by Leonardo Wagenknecht Utech, a business administrator, who accused other users of insulting him on the platform.

One of the disputes began after Utech mocked a pro-amnesty demonstration related to the January 8 riots.

His sarcastic comment drew a harsh reply from another user, which Judge Mafra determined was offensive and unlawful.

The judge ordered the response removed and instructed X to provide the IP address of the user in question, an order the platform followed.

But the most controversial element wasn’t the content of the posts. It was the court’s insistence that the deletion must apply globally.

X argued that enforcing Brazilian laws beyond Brazil’s borders sets a dangerous precedent, but Judge Mafra dismissed the jurisdictional challenge, declaring that full removal was non-negotiable.

He also claimed that there was no issue of overreach, saying the court’s order “removes Brazilian interest and is based on Brazilian standards.”

In a second case brought by Utech, the pattern repeated. After he made a comment critical of Pope Leo XIV’s alleged political leanings, another user responded with an insult.

Once again, the judge ruled in Utech’s favor and again imposed a global takedown order.

Mafra maintained that such posts exceeded the bounds of lawful expression, asserting that “freedom of expression is not unlimited” and must conform to notions of “honor, good faith, good customs.”

The judge imposed financial penalties for noncompliance, including a daily fine of one thousand reais ($183) capped at twenty thousand.

Two separate injunctions have been granted so far, both ordering global deletion of user posts.

September 14, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

Elon Musk and Brazil: The conflict is more complex than it seems

By Raphael Machado | Strategic Culture Foundation | September 19, 2024

The suspension of services of X (formerly Twitter) in Brazil, as well as the threat of an $8,000 fine for anyone using a VPN to continue using the social network, has made global headlines. Although there had been previous reports of friction between X and the Brazilian political-legal system, the news of the suspension surprised many people, in Brazil and abroad.

For foreigners, especially those who consider themselves “anti-imperialist”, it is very difficult to construct a consistent interpretation of this conflict between Musk and Brazil because of the expectations critics of unipolarity have developed regarding Brazil under Lula’s return.

These are the same people who were shocked by Brazil’s hostility toward Nicolás Maduro and a series of other inconsistent positions taken by the Brazilian government on the international stage.

But while investigating how committed the current Brazilian government is to the idea of a multipolar order is relevant, the fact is that Lula has only marginal involvement in the suspension of X in Brazil.

First of all, how is this issue being framed by both sides of the dispute? Generally, the issue of “X” in Brazil is being treated as a conflict between “respect for the law” versus “freedom of expression.” It is difficult to take this framing seriously for a number of reasons.

X, under Elon Musk, has consistently censored or reduced the reach of pro-Palestinian accounts since Musk’s visit to Israel. If X is not like Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, or the newer BlueSky, it clearly cannot be seen as a bastion of free speech.

On the other side, however, the situation is also a bit more complex than simply the duty of X to comply with Brazilian laws. Elon Musk has indeed raised some concerning points regarding Judge Alexandre de Moraes, who made decisions contrary to Brazilian internet norms and tried to force X to comply with them.

Even setting aside these decisions about social media account censorship, the handling of the X case itself has drawn criticism in Brazil.

The root of this conflict is the fact that Moraes has been leading a criminal inquiry for over five years, now known as the “fake news inquiry,” where he goes beyond the usual role of a passive and impartial judge and actively investigates and judges cases of “disinformation” that allegedly threaten “democracy” and Brazil’s electoral process. The rhetoric is very reminiscent of Orwellian narratives produced in Washington and Brussels.

As the political-legal establishment and its international partners are quite satisfied with the Brazilian government’s current stance on most issues, the main targets of these investigations are figures linked to the opposition.

Thus, in the context of this inquiry, Judge Moraes has ordered the suspension of social media accounts of those under investigation. Such decisions are legally questionable under Brazilian law. First, because the inquiry has far exceeded a reasonable time frame for conclusion and doesn’t appear to have a clear objective. Second, because suspending social media accounts of individuals without a conviction, in an inquiry that seems “endless,” is inappropriate. Third, because the Brazilian Internet Civil Framework, the country’s legislation on internet-related obligations for companies, stipulates that a social media account can only be blocked for specific violations of norms – and Judge Moraes, in his orders to X, never specified the reasons for the suspensions.

These are some of the main arguments, including those raised by Elon Musk, to challenge these judicial decisions.

The situation worsened when Moraes allegedly threatened X’s office employees in Brazil with imprisonment if they failed to comply with his decisions. Amidst this confusion, the Judiciary claims that X’s representative in Brazil has been evading court summonses. On the other hand, there are indications that Moraes’ staff sent the summons to the wrong email address when attempting to notify X.

Nonetheless, these threats explain why X decided to shut down its office in Brazil. Immediately afterward, Moraes ordered X to appoint a new legal representative in Brazil, which is mandatory for companies operating in the country.

Since X did not establish a new representation in Brazil, Moraes ordered the company’s suspension.

The situation would seem more reasonable if Moraes hadn’t also imposed a daily fine of $8,000 on any Brazilians using VPNs to continue accessing the social network. Needless to say, the order was immediately disobeyed by most Brazilian X users, and the Brazilian Bar Association filed an appeal to annul the fine.

The problem with the fine is that it casts doubt on the claim that this is merely a natural consequence of X not having legal representation in the country in accordance with the law. Why, then, impose fines on ordinary users who are not part of the inquiry and were not even notified of the decision (which, again, is unconstitutional under Brazilian law)?

Next, Moraes ordered the blocking of Starlink’s accounts, a company with different shareholders, to collect the fine imposed on X – once again, a decision that violates Brazil’s entire legal framework.

However, the issue transcends the legal debate and refers back to the fact that X is a space successfully used by sectors of Brazilian politics that oppose the “Juristocracy,” as well as the influence of foreign NGOs in Brazil and the current government.

Platforms like Meta, for example, are absolutely controlled by the U.S. Deep State and impose draconian restrictions on anyone who deviates from globalist ideological orthodoxy. Moreover, this may seem incomprehensible and unbelievable to our partners in other BRICS countries, but Brazil does not have an anti-Atlanticist, counter-hegemonic mass media. The Brazilian mass media belongs to an oligopoly that is deeply tied to U.S. media conglomerates.

In this sense, spaces like X represent an “oasis” used by both the right-wing opposition and the anti-imperialist left.

To understand what Moraes and other judges think of this, one only needs to recall a statement he made a few weeks ago: “At the turn of the century, there were no social networks; and we were happier,” said to loud applause from representatives of Brazil’s major TV networks and newspapers.

Naturally – we insist – Elon Musk is not exactly a victim here. He is far from it. For example, it is also true that his Tesla lost contracts to Chinese rivals in Brazil in recent years, which greatly irritated him. It is also true that he believes he can gain greater business penetration in the Brazilian market if Bolsonaro returns to power – and he openly uses his large presence on X to occasionally boost posts from opponents of the Lula government.

Therefore, the case transcends the superficial duality presented as “sovereignty vs. freedom of expression,” and is more accurately an expression of a dispute between different sectors of the Brazilian elite, both with international ties (let us remember that Moraes was part of the international scheme of Operation Car Wash, whose objective was to destroy Brazilian companies, imprison Lula, and overthrow Dilma Rousseff under the guidance of the U.S. Department of Justice), and both clearly hostile to the project of a new multipolar order.

September 20, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | Leave a comment