Brazil Justice Marques says full Supreme Court should decide on conservative challenge to X ban

By Luciana Magalhaes, Ricardo Brito

SAO PAULO (Reuters) -Brazilian Justice Kassio Nunes Marques said the full Supreme Court will make the final decision on a case filed by a conservative political party challenging the suspension of social media platform X in the country, a document showed on Thursday, which could potentially escalatea months-long feud.

In his decision, Marques said that "the constitutional controversy conveyed in this argument is sensitive and has special repercussions for public and social order, so I consider it pertinent to submit it for consideration of the full Supreme Court," the document showed.

According to a Supreme Court spokesperson, that does not mean the case will immediately be sent to the full court, as Marques could make an individual decision before putting it to the top court's 11 members. 

"What the justice said is that in the end the final decision must be made by the plenary," the spokesperson said.

Marques has also asked to hear the opinion of the office of Brazil's attorney general before any decision.

Right wing party Partido Novo has been seeking to reverse Justice Alexandre de Moraes' ban on Elon Musk's X platform.

"This is about freedom of expression - we want X back to normal in Brazil," Jonathan Mariano, a federal prosecutor and Partido Novo candidate for Rio de Janeiro's city council, told Reuters.

Moraes last week ordered X blocked in its sixth-biggest market after the platform, formerly known as Twitter, failed to comply with orders to block some accounts accused of spreading "fake news" and hate messages that the judge said were a threat to democracy. 

X also failed to name a local legal representative as required by Brazilian law and ignored a deadline for compliance with court orders.

In response, Moraes froze the assets of Musk's Starlink satellite broadband firm for possible use to cover fines owed by X.

A poll has shown that Brazilians are split over Moraes' order for X to be taken down in the country. A slight majority says the judge is right in his feud with Musk, but the user-targeted fines on VPNs and the freezing of Starlink accounts in the country were seen as "abusive."

Musk, who has called Moraes a "dictator," accused him of "shutting down the #1 source of truth in Brazil." X has shut its Brazil offices over what it called "censorship" by the judge.

Partido Novo sought a court injunction this week to halt Moraes' ban of X, saying it was unconstitutional. The party also questioned the freezing of Starlink assets, arguing that the two firms are separate entities.

Moraes declined to comment on Wednesday about the party's challenges. Musk, his lawyer and Starlink did not respond to repeated requests for comment this week.

Musk, in addition to owning X and 40% of Starlink parent SpaceX, is the CEO of electric-vehicle maker Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA ).

Brazil's leftist president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, has backed Moraes' decision to suspend X, saying, "Just because a guy has a lot of money doesn't mean he can disrespect" the law. Musk derided the president as Moraes' "lapdog."

Moraes' decision was backed by one of the Supreme Court's two panels, although some experts said a wider consensus should have been sought.

"Such a controversial issue should have been debated by all 11 justices, not just by half of them," said Sao Paulo-based constitutional lawyer Vera Chemim, who argued the case boils down to a battle for power between Musk and Moraes. 

Chemim said the freezing of Starlink's accounts violates Brazilian law and should be immediately reversed. 

But a former Supreme Court chief justice, Carlos Ayres Britto, disagreed. "X and Starlink are tentacles of the same octopus, they form an economic group," he said. 



Partido Novo is not the only group questioning Moraes' decision. Brazil's Bar Association has also asked the Supreme Court to reverse Moraes' order to fine Brazilians 50,000 reais ($8,900) a day for using VPNs to access X in the country.

The association argued that imposing fines violates the constitutional principles of separation of powers, full defense and due process.

Source: Investing.com