A dispute between Elon Musk and authorities in Brazil intensified over the weekend as a Supreme Court judge initiated an inquiry into the billionaire’s actions regarding social media accounts. Musk, known for owning platform X (formerly Twitter) and advocating for free speech, contested Justice Alexandre de Moraes’s decision to block specific accounts, citing their alleged unconstitutionality. Despite the lack of disclosure regarding the targeted accounts, Musk declared X’s intention to lift all restrictions, urging Moraes to step down.
Coming shortly, 𝕏 will publish everything demanded by @Alexandre and how those requests violate Brazilian law.
This judge has brazenly and repeatedly betrayed the constitution and people of Brazil. He should resign or be impeached.
Justice Moraes, investigating digital misinformation and an alleged coup attempt during former President Jair Bolsonaro’s tenure, responded by including Musk in the probe and accusing him of obstructing justice. In a public statement, Moraes emphasised the court’s orders and threatened fines against X if it failed to comply. Musk, in turn, vowed to challenge the order legally, asserting principles over profit and highlighting what he perceives as judicial overreach.
The clash has drawn political attention, with President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva’s government supporting Justice Moraes and condemning Musk’s defiance. Solicitor General Jorge Messias criticised Musk’s actions, advocating for regulations to prevent foreign platforms from disregarding Brazilian laws. This echoes previous regulatory efforts, such as Moraes’s investigation into executives at Telegram and Alphabet last year regarding internet regulation legislation.
Why does it matter?
The standoff underscores broader tensions surrounding online speech, governmental authority, and the role of tech giants in shaping public discourse. As the dispute unfolds, it raises questions about the balance between free expression and regulatory oversight in the digital age, with implications for Brazil’s legal landscape and the global tech industry.
In the first quarter of 2024, Pulse has documented 22 deliberate internet shutdowns across 12 countries, with some ongoing since 2023. This figure matches the peak seen in 2021 during Myanmar‘s military coup, highlighting a concerning trend. India has been the most affected, with nine shutdowns, followed by Ethiopia and Senegal, each experiencing two incidents. Over half of these shutdowns have been localised, impacting specific regions within countries including Chad, Comoros, Cuba, Iran, Pakistan, Palestinian Territory and Russia.
Among the recorded events, nine led to nationwide disruptions lasting from hours to months, affecting approximately 297 million internet users and resulting in over 910 days of downtime. These shutdowns have inflicted significant economic losses, amounting to USD 565.4 million in GDP, as reported by Pulse. Such disruptions hinder societal progress, hamper economies, and undermine the stability of the global internet infrastructure.
Why does it matter?
Championing an open and easily accessible internet, advocates stress the significance of prioritising policies that ensure uninterrupted connectivity. Governments and policymakers globally are encouraged to endorse efforts to protect the internet, acknowledging its pivotal role in nurturing economic development and providing opportunities for individuals to exercise fundamental human rights in the digital era.
As reported by Reuters, any information identified as ‘fake or false’ by the Press Information Bureau (PIB) or any other agency authorised for fact-checking by the government would be prohibited if the new rules are adopted. Social media platforms or other ‘online intermediaries’ would be required to ‘make reasonable efforts’ to ensure that their users do not ‘host, display, upload, modify, publish, transmit, store, update or share’ information deemed as ‘fake or false’.
Reporters Without Borders (RSF) and the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) have urged Twitter to revise its policies in order to protect the right to information and uphold press freedom. The organisations sent a joint letter to Twitter’s management team expressing their concern about recent developments regarding the company’s policies and actions, noting that these ‘contribute to a hostile environment for journalists and threaten media freedom more broadly’.
The letter also outlines steps Twitter can take to ‘regain integrity and uphold the basic human right to information’. For instance, the company is invited to implement transparent corporate policies aligned with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, to preserve and update its annual transparency report, and to reinstate the Trust and Safety Council.
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) will host a global multistakeholder conference on the topic of regulating digital platforms. The event will bring together UN entities, other intergovernmental organisations, ministers, regulators, judicial actors, the private sector, civil society, academia, and the technical communities to discuss challenges and ways forward in ensuring that regulatory approaches targeting digital platforms support freedom of expression and the availability of accurate and reliable information in the public sphere.
The conference will feature debates and consultations on the draft Guidance on regulating digital platforms: a multistakeholder approach, issued by UNESCO for public consultation in December 2022. The guidance is dedicated to actors seeking to regulate, co-regulate ,and self-regulate digital platforms, and aimed to assist them in developing approaches that support freedom of expression and the availability of accurate and reliable information in the public sphere, while dealing with content that potentially damages human rights and democracy.
Registration for the event is open until 17 February 2023. More details are available on the conference website.
The cybercrime draft law is seen as containing threats to journalists and freedom of the press. For instance, it imposes penalties ranging from a minimum fine of 10 million Iraqi dinars (more than €6,500) to prison terms of seven to ten years for anyone who uses the internet ‘with the intention to undermine religious, family or social values and principles’. The second draft law is criticised for containing ‘vague and ambiguous language that is open to interpretation and therefore to manipulation by the authorities’.
In the Philippines, a Quezon City court found Frank Cimatu, a writer for the independent Philippine news site Rappler, guilty of cyber libel, in relation to a Facebook post the journalist made in 2017 concerning alleged corruption by the then Agriculture Secretary Manny Pinol. The court determined that the post was originally posted in a public environment, despite Cimatu’s claims that it was private and only visible to his Facebook friends.
Commenting on the court decision, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) called on Philippine authorities not to contest the journalist’s appeal and to ‘stop filing spurious cyber libel charges against members of the press’.
Amnesty International argues that Tunisian authorities have strengthened restrictions on freedom of expression by passing a new decree-law on cybercrime (in September 2022) and using it to open criminal investigations against at least four people.
According to the organisation, the law does not clearly define the parameters and requirements for approving surveillance and data-gathering methods in a way that ensures that human rights are not violated. It mandates harsh prison sentences based on ambiguous concepts like ‘fake news,’ and gives the government broad authority to track people’s online activities and gather personal information with the argument that doing so might help in revealing the truth or is necessary for the investigation of a suspected crime.
At the request of the German Federal Court of Justice, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has held that search engine operators shall dereference content that the user shows to be manifestly inaccurate, in the exercise of their right to be forgotten. In the case at hand, two managers of a group of investment companies filed a request with Google asking for dereference of results of searches made with their names that reveal articles containing inaccurate claims about the group. Also, they requested the removal of their photos from the list of results of an image search made on the basis of their names. The burden of proof is on requesting users to provide evidence capable of establishing the inaccuracy of the information. Such evidence does not need to stem from a judicial decision proving the inaccuracy. In regard to the display of photos, the CJEU stated that the search engine operators must conduct a separate balancing of competing rights and that the informative value of photos should be taken into account without taking into consideration the context of their publication on the internet page from which they are taken.
A new Russian law bans ‘propaganda’ about ‘nontraditional sexual relations’ in the media, advertising, or on social media. The new law extends the ban on ‘propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations’ among minors, in place since 2013, to adults, with steep fines or suspension of business activities for Russians, and expulsion from the country for foreigners who are found guilty. The law also prohibits the issuance of a rental or streaming certificate for films promoting nontraditional sexual relations and preferences. The new law imposes fines for ‘propaganda’ of nontraditional sexual relations or preferences to about US$6,400 for citizens and US$80,000 for organisations. Roskomnadzor, Russia’s internet regulator, is tasked with the enforcement of these rules.
