(This is an English version of the editorial originally published by Gazeta do Povo on Tuesday, August 20th 2024)
The idea that it is better to suffer an injustice than to commit it dates back from Ancient Greece. The best known formulation of that is in the dialogue Gorgias, whose author, Plato, puts it in the mouth of Socrates, said to be “the wisest of men”. This notion has crossed the centuries, and it has been adopted by the most different philosophical and religious branches, which have always reinforced the wrongfulness of committing an injustice. While this is obvious when it comes to harming a third party at one’s own free will, many may find themselves in a quandary if the order to commit an injustice comes from a superior – notedly if it comes from a superior who has the state power of coercion in their hands. Elon Musk’s X was faced with this situation and opted for a response that few have chosen nowadays.
On Saturday, the account of the X department responsible for relations with governments published an order by Brazilian Supreme Court justice Alexandre de Moraes, which was supposed to be confidential, threatening the company’s legal representative in Brazil with fine and imprisonment. On August 7th, the justice had ordered the suspension of some accounts and profiles, “as well as any groups that are managed by their users, also blocking any ongoing monetization related to the profiles referred to”, and the handing over of the registration data of those responsible for these accounts and profiles. All that with just two hours to comply with the decision. X, however, has not taken down the accounts – the targets of the decision are unknown at the moment. The social network recently refused to block the profile of senator Marcos do Val, but it is not clear whether his case is linked to the document released by X on Saturday. By failing to comply with the order, Moraes fined the company.
Withstanding abuse, saying “no” to an unfair order, no matter where it comes from, and bearing the consequences is a necessity for anyone who doesn’t want to become an accomplice to injustice and arbitrariness
What followed was a huge display of ineptitude and authoritarianism. Moraes went on to target X’s legal representative in Brazil, but chased the wrong person, who hadn’t held the post since April – an easy information to ascertain from the São Paulo State Board of Trade. Once the name of the current legal representative was discovered, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the STF staff made a typo in the e-mail address, which would have made the message impossible to reach the director. With the absence of a response – fully explainable in the case of an error in sending the message –, Moraes began to presume the legal representative was acting in bad faith. On Friday night, he threatened her with a fine and imprisonment, and ordered her retirement from the company if the court order of censorship was not complied with within 24 hours – a period that has already expired. In response, X says, “to protect the safety of our team, we have taken the decision to close our operations in Brazil, with immediate effect”. In theory, the end of any link between X and those who worked for the company in Brazil would prevent them from suffering legal consequences such as those threatened by Moraes.
Gazeta do Povo has explained oftentimes, here and elsewhere, why the complete suspension of profiles is illegal – since the Brazilian Civil Mark of Internet does not provide for this type of measure, but only for the removal of specific content that constitutes a crime – disproportionate and, above all, unconstitutional, since this type of measure constitutes prior censorship by depriving the owners of banned accounts of the right to express themselves on any topic. This violates the right to freedom of speech guaranteed by Article 5, IV of the Brazilian Constitution, as well as Article 220, especially paragraph 2, according to which “any censorship of a political, ideological and artistic nature is forbidden”. But what is at stake here goes far beyond strictly legal issues. Moraes’s decisions effectively force social media companies to silence third parties, i.e. their users, in an attitude that, as we have also said, consists of “clear and mere silencing” and “a modern version of what used to be called ‘civil death’”. These companies are used as the longa manus of the State to commit a huge injustice against citizens, outsourcing the decision.
It doesn't matter here whether X has complied with similar orders in the past, or whether it doesn’t take the same attitude in other countries, which may reveal a certain hypocrisy on Elon Musk’s part when he says that “there would be no way to explain our actions without being embarrassed” if Moraes’s orders were obeyed. The fact is that, in this specific case, the decision not to comply with a court order that would result in an injustice against third parties is quite defensible, if not praiseworthy. Rivers of ink have flowed about civil disobedience, an idea that existed many centuries before Henry David Thoreau coined the expression. Withstanding abuse, saying “no” to an unfair order, no matter where it comes from, and bearing the consequences – which, in the case of X, could lead the social media to be banned from Brazil – considering that justice Luís Roberto Barroso, Moraes’s colleague who calls himself an “illuminist” but is just an enlightened despot, has said – is a necessity for anyone who doesn’t want to become an accomplice to injustice and arbitrariness.
Deixe sua opinião