On August 30, 2024, Minister Alexandre de Moraes of Brazil’s Supreme Court ordered the suspension of X, following a months-long legal confrontation. The conflict began in April when the court mandated the suspension of several X accounts for allegedly spreading disinformation and attacking democracy. X’s failure to comply with this order led to the court imposing fines and threatening to imprison company representatives in the country. In response to these measures, the company decided not to pay the fines and instead closed their offices in the country which eventually resulted in the suspension of the entire platform in Brazil. On September 2, First Chamber Justices unanimously endorsed Moraes’ ruling. We note that the text of the proceedings remain sealed and more information is needed for a comprehensive analysis.
Access Now opposes the suspension of X in Brazil and is concerned by the growing trend of blocking of entire online platforms and applications as a response to systemic non-compliance. Such extreme actions are rarely proportionate as they violate people’s fundamental human rights and negatively impact the most marginalized communities instead of ensuring meaningful accountability from the platforms and mitigating their negative impact on human rights.
The recent block on X—formerly Twitter —in Brazil is a clear example of this trend, where approximately 22 million users are caught in the crossfire of platforms and judicial decisions. Moreover, the platform has had a big influence on political affairs and information sharing in Brazil. Blocking a platform does not solve the underlying issues of disinformation and hate speech. Instead, it limits access to information and stifles free expression, broadly, and in particular here, will have major implications for democracy as Brazil prepares to hold local elections in October.
International human rights law considers blocking online platforms a last resort measure if backed by significant procedural safeguards. They include providing advance notification of the blocking measures to affected parties and conducting an impact assessment of the measures to avoid their arbitrary or excessive effects. In addition, a blocking order has to be issued by an independent and impartial judicial body, and the legal basis for ordering platforms’ blocking must, among other things, be clear and predictable.
We also recognize this is a complex case. In Brazil, a Latin American country with strong democratic institutions, the owner of the X platform decided to ignore requests from judicial authorities and, instead of appealing through the appropriate channels, chose to completely ignore the Brazilian judicial system—and the regional human rights system—that has brought as a consequence the block on X.
Moreover, and despite contradictory information surrounding this measure, the Supreme Court’s move to impose a USD 9000 fine on individuals or companies using Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) to access X, threatens fundamental rights to privacy and access to information. Initially, the court had ordered Google and Apple to remove VPN apps from their stores, but this demand was later dropped. Still, the lingering fines for VPN users represent a troubling encroachment on personal freedoms.
Access Now believes this situation sets a dangerous precedent. The actions of both the Brazilian judiciary and X have contributed to a climate where legal disputes are becoming politicized, and users are the ones paying the price. The court’s decision to block X is disproportionate under Inter-American human rights standards, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), and global norms. Nevertheless, X’s failure to comply with legal mechanisms to challenge the court’s ruling has only exacerbated the issue, transforming it into a power struggle. Notably, X’s selective compliance with requests from authorities in other countries, such as India and Turkey, is not consistent with the respect and protection of rights such as freedom of expression, suggesting that the platform’s approach is more opportunistic than based on human rights.
Access Now calls for the immediate reversal of the suspension. Both the judiciary and the platform must be held to account. At the same time, public institutions must protect human rights and refrain from using extreme measures like platform blocking, which only serve to undermine democracy and individual rights.
Ultimately, moves like this punish people not platforms. We urge that Brazil’s judicial, governmental, and private sectors work together to safeguard fundamental rights of free expression, access to information, and economic empowerment for all individuals. The blocking of platforms is a blunt instrument that disproportionately affects users and fails to address the root problems it seeks to solve. This situation in Brazil is not only a dangerous precedent for its democracy but also a warning to other nations, as we witness a growing trend of internet shutdowns and platform blocking worldwide.