Brazil’s Alexandre de Moraes’ overreach has gone nuclear.
The far-left judicial El Jefe is freezing Starlink’s finances, preventing the Elon Musk-owned company from doing further business in the country.
Starlink used its X account to break the news early Friday, stating that 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.”
The vindictive leftwing lawfare will hurt the off-grid internet provider’s customers “from the Amazon to Rio de Janeiro.”
This, Starlink said, will hit “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.
First describing him as a “criminal wearing judge’s robes like a Halloween costume.”
Then calling the leftwing judge, “an evil dictator cosplaying as a judge.”
To this Musk added, “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 line up, fall-in, and goose-step in unison.
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 said, De Moraes, wanted to shut down “a pastor, a current Parliamentarian, and the wife of a former Parliamentarian.”
X refused, and then De Moraes doubled down.
Mid-August he issued a secret order “threatening the social media’s Brazilian staff with arrest.”
The company responded by closing X’s office in Brazil, stating, “to protect the safety of our staff, we have made the decision to close our operation in Brazil, effective immediately.”
At the time, X said, “they were forced to make the decision, and, at least for now, their service remains 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.”
Retaliating, De Moraes slapped Musk with a summons on the 28th of August.
He was given 24 hours to appoint a legal representative who could act as his proxy or face further fines, and punitive action.
The one 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.”
Banning X appears to be exactly what De Moraes has now done.
In sum, the back and forth is an escalation of De Moraes’ weaponised assault on Elon Musk for his support of former Brazilian President, Jair Bolsonaro.
Brazil’s current government are accusing Musk of stoking political unrest – up to dissent, and “insurrection.”
Specific charges against Musk include, “practising the obstruction of justice, criminal organization, and incitement to crime.”
With France’s arrest of Telegram founder, and CEO Pavel Durov, on similar grounds, could Elon Musk be next?
Probably, if Musk ever landed in Brasilia, or Rio under the De Moraes’ vulture-esk watch.
Tucker Carlson recently said as much.
He 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 shifted to subscriptions.
He’s not as cancellable, or as easily controlled as other social media billionaires, Benz explained.
Musk is vulnerable because his platform is so broad. There are a lot of areas where a weaponised judiciary, run by authoritarian bureaucrats can apply a lot of pressure.
Such as Space X, and Tesla.
The greater threat to Musk, Benz concluded is EU censorship of WMD “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% of global revenue.
If he doesn’t comply with the demands of EU-appointed “fact-checkers”, it will cost 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. It’s unlikely U.S authorities will stop” the Fasco-Communist censorship Czars.
This is because, Benz said, the current regime is “in on it.”
Watch or listen to the 14-minute segment here:
