Alexandre de Moraes’ overreach has gone nuclear.
In Brazil, the far-left judicial El Jefe is freezing Starlink’s finances, preventing Elon Musk’s company from doing further business in the country.
Starlink has used its X account to break the news early Friday, stating:
‘[The] order is based on an unfounded determination that Starlink should be responsible for the fines levied – unconstitutionally – against X.’
Worse, the order ‘was issued in secret and without affording Starlink any of the due process’.
This vindictive lawfare will hurt the off-grid internet provider’s customers, from the Amazon to Rio de Janeiro.
The action, Starlink said, will also impact small businesses, schools, and first responders.
Starlink donated 1,000 kits to Brazil’s emergency services in May, and provided free internet capabilities during severe flooding in its Southern States.
Defying the overt overreach, the company later announced legal action, saying the politically motivated order ‘violates Brazil’s Constitution’.
Just as resolute, Elon Musk, took to X to criticise ‘Dictator’ de Moraes. Musk tweeted:
To this Musk alleged:
‘SpaceX and X are two completely different companies […] this absolutely illegal action by De Moraes improperly punishes other shareholders and the people of Brazil.’
The actions against Starlink appear to be in retaliation for Musk’s reluctance to censor X.
So far, Musk has refused to comply with the Brazilian far-left government’s ongoing attack on classic liberal freedoms.
For instance, on August 18, De Moraes threatened X’s staff in Brazil with arrest.
The reason?
X refuses to censor on demand.
According to a helpful, detailed exposition published by Christian Caruzo on Breitbart, Musk defied De Moraes in April, even though he faced ‘daily fines of $19,700 per account X refused to censor’.
Musk eventually complied, and as with all policies of appeasement, more was soon demanded.
Making the secret requests for censorship public, X alleged De Moraes wanted to shut down ‘a pastor, a current Parliamentarian, and the wife of a former Parliamentarian’.
X refused.
Mid-August De Moraes issued an order ‘threatening the social media’s Brazilian staff with arrest’.
The company responded by closing X’s office in Brazil, stating this was to:
‘…protect the safety of our staff, we have made the decision to close our operation in Brazil, effective immediately.’
At the time, X insisted they were forced to make the decision and that their services remain available.
Condemning De Moraes, the press release added:
‘His actions are incompatible with democratic government. The people of Brazil have a choice to make – democracy, or Alexandre de Moraes.’
Musk was slapped with a summons on the August 28 and given 24 hours to appoint a legal representative who could act as his proxy or face further fines and punitive action.
The single-page subpoena stamped by de Moraes, approved posting the summons on X, which contained demands to pay-up, or pay with the ‘immediate suspension of the “X” social network’.
In sum, the back and forth has been seen by some as an escalation of de Moraes’ confrontation with Elon Musk for his support of former Brazilian President, Jair Bolsonaro.
Brazil’s current government has accused Musk of stoking political unrest – up to dissent and ‘insurrection’.
Specific accusations include ‘practising the obstruction of justice, criminal organisation, and incitement to crime’.
With France’s arrest of Telegram founder and CEO Pavel Durov under a similar air of public concern, many are wondering if Elon Musk might be next.
Probably, if Musk ever landed in Brazil under the De Moraes’ vulture-esque watch.
Tucker Carlson recently said as much.
Was the Biden administration involved in the arrest of Telegram CEO Pavel Durov? Mike Benz explains.
(1:20) Who Was Involved in Pavel Durov’s Arrest?
(15:50) How Telegram Is Used by the CIA
(27:22) Domestic Policy Doesn’t Exist
(34:19) The Redefining of Democracy
(39:21) The… pic.twitter.com/cmgWWCIIpw
— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) August 28, 2024
Tucker asked former Trump official, Mike Benz, directly: ‘Will they take out Elon Musk?’
Benz replied:
‘It’s a complicated issue, because Elon is very unique.’
The strategy on this – apart from prosecutions – is to threaten income through advertisers, in order to coerce compliance with ‘approved narratives’.
Whether media, or social media, ‘killing revenue’ is the first go-to.
To counter this, Musk has shifted X to a partial subscription model.
He is not as cancellable or as easily controlled as other social media billionaires, Benz explained.
Musk is vulnerable because his platform is so broad. There’s a lot of areas a weaponised judiciary can apply pressure to.
Such as Space X, and Tesla.
The greater threat to Musk, Benz concluded, is EU censorship via ‘the Digital Services Act’ and its demands for ‘disinformation compliance’.
‘This will force Elon to rehire all of the fired censors, and it will force him to restaff the censorship apparatus.’
For example, the fine for Musk’s current alleged non-compliance with the EU’s DSA is 6 per cent of global revenue.
If he doesn’t comply with the demands of EU-appointed ‘fact-checkers’, it will cost both him and X shareholders.
On top of a massive financial hit, Musk could ‘lose X’s participation all over the EU’.
‘If X is kicked out of the EU, they are no longer a global platform.’
The threat to Musk, Benz concluded, is ‘existential’.
This translates as major leverage over Elon where it is unlikely that American authorities will stop the European censorship Czars.
This is because, Benz said, the current regime is ‘in on it’.
