'No more, no less'

‘There isn't much of an explanation’

'I don't think that he'll be sentenced on the 18th'

'She didn't have the stones'

'Keep justice blind, not politically motivated'

'We cannot conclude that any interference with parental rights'

The shut down follows Musk closing the company's offices in Brazil

'antisemitism is prejudice'

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Controversial Brazilian Supreme Court justice Justice Alexandre de Moraes has ordered the suspension of Elon Musk’s social media platform X in Brazil after Musk refused to appoint a legal representative in the country. The Attorney General Jorge Messias backed Moraes’ decision, threatening to impose a fine of R$ 50 thousand ($8,900 USD) daily to any citizen that attempts to bypass the ban (such as using VPNs) to access X. The decision marks a significant escalation in the ongoing conflict between Musk and the Brazilian judiciary after the social media platform refused to cave to Moraes’ demands to censor “misinformation,” and “hate speech” linked to critics of Brazil’s government led by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. Moraes issued a threat to Musk and X CEO Linda Yaccarino on Wednesday, stating that X could face a shutdown in Brazil if it didn’t name a local representative within 24 hours. X had shut down its operations in Brazil following the censorship demands, to protect staff after Moraes threatened them with arrest. In response, X took to its official Global Government Affairs page late Thursday, claiming that it anticipated being shut down by de Moraes “simply because we would not comply with his illegal orders to censor his political opponents.” Following the ban, Elon Musk posted, “Free speech is the bedrock of democracy and an unelected pseudo-judge in Brazil is destroying it for political purposes.” The escalation is a troubling development for free speech, marking a significant escalation in governmental attempts to control online discourse. This order, which demands that X appoint a local legal representative and comply with censorship directives, represents a stark instance of government overreach. By targeting “misinformation” and “hate speech” specifically linked to government critics, the move suggests a politically motivated effort to stifle dissent—a core element of democratic societies. Further compounding these concerns are the threats of legal repercussions against X’s leadership, including arrests of staff, which exemplify a worrying use of legal intimidation to enforce compliance. This not only threatens the principle of free expression but also establishes a chilling effect across digital platforms, potentially leading them to self-censor to avoid similar fates. Brazil’s actions are also tapping into a dangerous international precedent, encouraging other governments to adopt similar restrictive measures against digital platforms. This could lead to a fragmented internet landscape where local government controls significantly hinder free speech across borders, undermining global digital freedoms. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Brazil: Supreme Court Judge Orders X To Be Banned, Threatens Citizens With Fines if They Use a VPN appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

A maverick antitrust scholar and celebrated free speech advocate has praised aspects of a monumental ruling on Big Tech while warning it still misses the target.  Matt Stoller, author of the bestselling book Goliath: The 100 -Year War Between Monopoly Power and Democracy, celebrated how a “shocking opinion” from the Third Circuit signaled “Big Tech's Free Ride” was ending. At the same time, Stoller warned that the court was wrong to treat Big Tech oligarchs as “speakers.”     The Third Circuit decision in Anderson v. TikTok held 47 U.S.C. § 230, or Sec. 230, does not apply to the algorithms tech firms use to determine what content is curated to users. Previous courts had held that Sec. 230 presented a broad “liability shield” for both what content a platform recommends and what content it censors. Stoller explained that “at the very least, this decision forces the issue” of what Sec. 230 actually means. The Supreme Court has yet to issue a ruling interpreting the meaning of the legislative provision, even though it was enacted 28 years ago.   Stoller cautioned, though, that rather than completely remove algorithms from Sec. 230’s protections, courts should instead view tech firms as distributors. This interpretation, Stoller explained, would recognize “an older pre-internet legal distinction between ‘publisher’ liability for speech, which is to say that author or publisher’s responsibility, and ‘distributor’ liability for speech, which is to say the bookstore, library, or newsstand’s role.” Stoller noted that this was the position taken by Judge Paul Matey, an appointee of then-President Donald Trump, who sought to interpret the statute according to its original meaning.  Stoller explained, “the fundamental issue here is not really whether big tech platforms should be regulated as speakers, as that’s a misconception of what they do. They don’t speak, they are middlemen. And hopefully, we will follow the logic of Matey’s opinion, and start to see the policy problem as what to do about that.” MRC Free Speech America Director Michael Morris elaborated, “Under Sec. 230, a platform should be treated as a distributor unless or until it goes beyond the enumerated list of acceptable justifications and begins censoring content. If it does go beyond this enumerated list, it then becomes a publisher.”    The Anderson ruling comes in ongoing litigation against the Big Tech firm TikTok and its parent company, communist Chinese government-controlled Bytedance. The suit was brought by the mother of a ten-year-old who died attempting the so-called “Blackout Challenge.”  This challenge, which TikTok promoted to the girl in its “For You Page,” encouraged viewers to intentionally asphyxiate themselves. Meanwhile, MRC Free Speech America’s CensorTrack database has documented 164 cases of TikTok censoring constitutionally-protected speech.   Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand they reiterate Sec. 230’s original meaning: When Big Tech censors political expression, they become publishers.