Brazilian judge launches inquiry into Elon Musk after refusal to block accounts on X

Brazilian judge launches inquiry into Elon Musk after refusal to block accounts on X

A dispute between Elon Musk and Brazil erupted on Sunday when a Supreme Court judge launched an inquiry into the Tesla CEO after Musk stated that he would reactivate accounts on the social media site X that the judge had ordered to be blocked.

Musk challenged Justice Alexandre de Moraes’ decision to block specific X accounts

Musk, X’s owner and self-proclaimed free speech absolutist, challenged Justice Alexandre de Moraes’ decision to block specific X accounts. He has stated that X, formerly known as Twitter, will abolish all restrictions because they are unconstitutional, and has called for Moraes’ resignation.

Neither Musk, X, nor Brazilian authorities have revealed whose social media accounts were ordered blocked. X initially mentioned the order to block on Saturday, although it wasn’t immediately apparent when it was issued.

Moraes is examining “digital militias” suspected of spreading fake news and hate messages under previous far-right President Jair Bolsonaro’s administration, as well as an alleged coup attempt by Bolsonaro himself.

Musk, in an X post, accused Moraes of “brazenly and repeatedly” betraying the Brazilian constitution and people.

“We are lifting all restrictions. This judge has applied massive fines, threatened to arrest our employees, and cut off access to 𝕏 in Brazil. As a result, we will probably lose all revenue in Brazil and have to shut down our office there. But principles matter more than profit.”

The billionaire has pledged to file a legal appeal to the order blocking X accounts.

Moraes responded on Sunday by including Musk in his investigation into fake news on social media, as well as initiating an inquiry into what he called an obstruction of justice.

Moraes said: “X shall refrain from disobeying any court order already issued, including performing any profile reactivation that has been blocked by this Supreme Court.”

Exit mobile version