SAO PAULO, Aug 17 — Media platform X said Saturday it would close its operations in Brazil “with immediate effect” due to a “censorship order” issued by Brazilian Judge Alexandre de Moraes.
Facebook X, owned by billionaire Elon Musk, claims that Moraes secretly threatened one of the company’s legal representatives in South America with arrest if he did not comply with a legal order to remove some content from the platform.
The social media giant published a photo of a document purportedly signed by Moraes, which states that X representative Rachel Nova Conceição faces a daily fine of 20,000 reais ($3,653) and an arrest warrant if the platform does not fully comply with his orders.
“To protect the safety of our employees, we have decided to close our operations in Brazil effective immediately,” X said.
Brazil’s Supreme Court, where Moraes sits, told Reuters it would not comment on the case and would neither confirm nor deny the authenticity of the documents shared by Mr X.
The platform announced on Saturday that its X service would remain available to Brazilian citizens.
Moraes ordered X to block certain accounts earlier this year as part of an investigation into so-called “digital militias” that allegedly spread fake news and hate messages during the administration of far-right former President Jair Bolsonaro.
Moraes began investigating the billionaire earlier this year after Musk said he would reactivate his X account after a judge ordered him blocked it. Musk has argued that Moraes’ decision regarding X was “unconstitutional.”
Following Musk’s challenge, X representatives reversed course, telling Brazil’s Supreme Court that the social media giant would comply with the legal ruling.
Lawyers representing X in Brazil in April told the Supreme Court that “operational flaws” had allowed users who were blocked to continue their activities on the social media platform, after Moraes asked X to explain why it had not fully complied with his decision.
In a post on X on Saturday, Musk called Moraes a “total contempt for justice” and said the company could never have agreed to the judge’s “demands for covert censorship and handover of personal information.”
