Elon Musk’s social media platform, X, assured Brazil’s Supreme Court of its compliance with court rulings following a recent dispute. This declaration comes after Musk challenged Justice Alexandre de Moraes’s directive to block specific accounts in Brazil. In a letter to Moraes last week, X’s Brazilian unit stated its inability to control the parent company’s adherence to Brazilian court orders.
However, X’s lawyers reiterated the platform’s commitment to fully comply with orders from the Supreme Court and the Superior Electoral Court of Brazil. This marks a significant shift from Musk’s earlier stance, where he vowed to reverse restrictions imposed by Moraes, citing constitutional concerns and urging the justice to resign.
Moraes responded by launching an inquiry into Musk for obstruction of justice amidst investigations into digital militias accused of spreading fake news during Jair Bolsonaro’s presidency. Additionally, Moraes leads an inquiry into an alleged coup attempt by Bolsonaro. X, facing further scrutiny, disclosed being subpoenaed by the US House Judiciary Committee for information on Brazilian Supreme Court directives regarding content moderation. The platform’s lawyers assured Moraes of cooperation, indicating compliance with the committee’s request and commitment to informing him of developments.
Elon Musk took to social media platform X to reveal that the US House of Representatives has initiated inquiries into actions allegedly breaching Brazilian law. Musk disclosed that X had been requested to suspend the accounts of Brazilian parliament members and numerous journalists. Neither the US House nor X has issued immediate comments in response to these developments.
𝕏 just received an inquiry from the US House of Representatives regarding actions taken in Brazil that were in violation of Brazilian law.
The House’s interest in Musk’s actions arises amid tensions with Brazil’s Supreme Court judge, Alexandre de Moraes. The judge launched an inquiry following Musk’s defiance of a court order to block specific accounts on X. Moraes warned of daily fines amounting to $19,736.32 should X fail to comply with the directive.
The standoff between Musk and Brazilian authorities underscores a clash over free speech principles. Musk, an advocate for unrestricted expression, contested Moraes’s orders as unconstitutional. Despite potential financial ramifications, including revenue loss and office closures in Brazil, Musk stood firm on his stance, prioritising principles over profit.
The situation continues to evolve, highlighting broader implications regarding online platform regulations, freedom of expression, and international legal jurisdictions. As tensions persist between Musk and Brazilian authorities, the outcome of this dispute could have significant ramifications for digital platforms and their operations in various countries.
Malaysia has called upon social media giants Facebook operator Meta and short video platform TikTok to intensify monitoring efforts on their platforms due to a surge in harmful content, as reported by the government. In the first quarter of 2024 alone, authorities referred 51,638 cases to these platforms for further action, a significant increase from the 42,904 cases recorded last year. While specific details on the reported content were not disclosed, the move aims to combat disseminating harmful material online, particularly concerning sensitive topics like race, religion, and royalty.
According to statements from Malaysian regulatory bodies and police, the plea to Meta and TikTok also encompassed the need to address content indicative of coordinated inauthentic behaviour, financial scams, and illegal online gambling. Sensitivity surrounding race and religion in Malaysia, a predominantly Muslim nation with significant ethnic Chinese and Indian populations, underpins the urgency of the government’s call. Additionally, Malaysia’s legal framework includes statutes prohibiting seditious remarks or insults directed at its monarchy, adding further weight to the push for online content regulation.
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’.
