![BrendanCarrFCC's tweet photo. Brazil’s decisions to ban X and freeze Starlink assets are part of a growing crackdown on free speech. But they also violates Brazil’s own laws.
Today, I wrote my regulatory counterparts in Brazil to address these unlawful actions.
*****
Dear ANATEL President Baigorri,
The FCC and ANATEL, the lead communications regulatory agencies in the U.S. and Brazil, have had a long-standing relationship—one built on reciprocity, respect for the rule of law, and our shared status as independent agencies established by law to operate without undue influence from the partisan political branches of our governments.
The sectors we regulate stand to benefit from continuing a partnership based on adherence to those foundational principles. Indeed, you recently signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the FCC’s Chairwoman that further formalized the FCC and ANATEL relationship.
Nonetheless, I am compelled to address with you today the cascading set of apparently unlawful and partisan political actions that your agency has been carrying out against businesses with U.S. ties, including your own threat to pull Starlink’s licenses and authorizations to operate in Brazil.
These punitive actions—backed publicly by the Lula Administration—are already reverberating broadly and shaking confidence in the stability and predictability of Brazil’s regulated markets. In fact, U.S. business leaders are now openly questioning whether Brazil is on the path to becoming an uninvestable market.
ANATEL is now actively enforcing a widely criticized decision by Justice de Moraes to censor X that, according to government officials in Brazil, violates Brazil’s own Constitution and your country’s statutory prohibitions against government censorship.
To make matters worse, Justice de Moraes chose to enforce his decision by freezing the assets of Starlink—even though Starlink is a separate company with different shareholders that has broken no laws.
Justice de Moraes has failed to respect universal and basic tenets of transparency, fair notice, and due process.
Indeed, it has now been revealed that Justice de Moraes has been sending social media companies secret orders to censor the political posts of elected members of Brazil’s Congress.
“If this sounds authoritarian, it is,” the Washington Post wrote this week about Justice de Moraes’s takedown campaign. Continuing, the Washington Post stated that Brazil’s recent moves come “at a substantial cost to free expression—with mandates for removals and even arrest warrants often issued under seal and with scant reasoning to support them.”
“Brazilians shouldn’t have to put up with government suppressing political viewpoints,” it concluded.
While Justice de Moraes’s actions mirror crackdowns on free speech that are taking place across the globe, I am not writing you today based on a generalized concern about free expression—though I believe strongly that communications regulators like us should stand against this trend towards censorship. Nor am I arguing that these actions by Brazil’s government somehow violate U.S. laws on free speech …
But according to Brazilian officials and legal authorities, Brazil is now violating its own laws through arbitrary and capricious actions against X and Starlink. Indeed, the Justice de Moraes decision runs headlong into Brazil’s own Constitution, which expressly prohibits “[a]ny and all censorship of a political, ideological and artistic nature,” as well as other provisions of Brazilian law that further guarantee freedom of expression.
The serious and apparently unlawful actions against X and Starlink cannot be squared with the principles of reciprocity, rule of law, and independence that have served as the foundation of the FCC and ANATEL relationship and the basis for reciprocal foreign investment.
I am therefore requesting a meeting with you to address and resolve these issues. If you prefer, I will come to you in Brazil to do so.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GWvIRX5a8AEFC2H.jpg)
Olivia
Online
Luciano J
@Ljunquei
United States
Joined November 2012
346 Following
47 Followers
564 Posts
@getnickwright Thanks Nick!!! 🇪🇸
@Tyrese_Ellis00 Scorpacciata Pasta Co. has the best gnocchi
@faustocoppi60 We don’t need snow, we have Lucas!!🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷
Here is the giveaway. Autographed Demar Derozan socks signed by me, Chris Cote, and Amin Elhassan. Just have to retweet to enter. https://t.co/YIfxYHPfcE
Brazil’s decisions to ban X and freeze Starlink assets are part of a growing crackdown on free speech. But they also violates Brazil’s own laws.
Today, I wrote my regulatory counterparts in Brazil to address these unlawful actions.
*****
Dear ANATEL President Baigorri,
The FCC and ANATEL, the lead communications regulatory agencies in the U.S. and Brazil, have had a long-standing relationship—one built on reciprocity, respect for the rule of law, and our shared status as independent agencies established by law to operate without undue influence from the partisan political branches of our governments.
The sectors we regulate stand to benefit from continuing a partnership based on adherence to those foundational principles. Indeed, you recently signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the FCC’s Chairwoman that further formalized the FCC and ANATEL relationship.
Nonetheless, I am compelled to address with you today the cascading set of apparently unlawful and partisan political actions that your agency has been carrying out against businesses with U.S. ties, including your own threat to pull Starlink’s licenses and authorizations to operate in Brazil.
These punitive actions—backed publicly by the Lula Administration—are already reverberating broadly and shaking confidence in the stability and predictability of Brazil’s regulated markets. In fact, U.S. business leaders are now openly questioning whether Brazil is on the path to becoming an uninvestable market.
ANATEL is now actively enforcing a widely criticized decision by Justice de Moraes to censor X that, according to government officials in Brazil, violates Brazil’s own Constitution and your country’s statutory prohibitions against government censorship.
To make matters worse, Justice de Moraes chose to enforce his decision by freezing the assets of Starlink—even though Starlink is a separate company with different shareholders that has broken no laws.
Justice de Moraes has failed to respect universal and basic tenets of transparency, fair notice, and due process.
Indeed, it has now been revealed that Justice de Moraes has been sending social media companies secret orders to censor the political posts of elected members of Brazil’s Congress.
“If this sounds authoritarian, it is,” the Washington Post wrote this week about Justice de Moraes’s takedown campaign. Continuing, the Washington Post stated that Brazil’s recent moves come “at a substantial cost to free expression—with mandates for removals and even arrest warrants often issued under seal and with scant reasoning to support them.”
“Brazilians shouldn’t have to put up with government suppressing political viewpoints,” it concluded.
While Justice de Moraes’s actions mirror crackdowns on free speech that are taking place across the globe, I am not writing you today based on a generalized concern about free expression—though I believe strongly that communications regulators like us should stand against this trend towards censorship. Nor am I arguing that these actions by Brazil’s government somehow violate U.S. laws on free speech …
But according to Brazilian officials and legal authorities, Brazil is now violating its own laws through arbitrary and capricious actions against X and Starlink. Indeed, the Justice de Moraes decision runs headlong into Brazil’s own Constitution, which expressly prohibits “[a]ny and all censorship of a political, ideological and artistic nature,” as well as other provisions of Brazilian law that further guarantee freedom of expression.
The serious and apparently unlawful actions against X and Starlink cannot be squared with the principles of reciprocity, rule of law, and independence that have served as the foundation of the FCC and ANATEL relationship and the basis for reciprocal foreign investment.
I am therefore requesting a meeting with you to address and resolve these issues. If you prefer, I will come to you in Brazil to do so.
![BrendanCarrFCC's tweet photo. Brazil’s decisions to ban X and freeze Starlink assets are part of a growing crackdown on free speech. But they also violates Brazil’s own laws.
Today, I wrote my regulatory counterparts in Brazil to address these unlawful actions.
*****
Dear ANATEL President Baigorri,
The FCC and ANATEL, the lead communications regulatory agencies in the U.S. and Brazil, have had a long-standing relationship—one built on reciprocity, respect for the rule of law, and our shared status as independent agencies established by law to operate without undue influence from the partisan political branches of our governments.
The sectors we regulate stand to benefit from continuing a partnership based on adherence to those foundational principles. Indeed, you recently signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the FCC’s Chairwoman that further formalized the FCC and ANATEL relationship.
Nonetheless, I am compelled to address with you today the cascading set of apparently unlawful and partisan political actions that your agency has been carrying out against businesses with U.S. ties, including your own threat to pull Starlink’s licenses and authorizations to operate in Brazil.
These punitive actions—backed publicly by the Lula Administration—are already reverberating broadly and shaking confidence in the stability and predictability of Brazil’s regulated markets. In fact, U.S. business leaders are now openly questioning whether Brazil is on the path to becoming an uninvestable market.
ANATEL is now actively enforcing a widely criticized decision by Justice de Moraes to censor X that, according to government officials in Brazil, violates Brazil’s own Constitution and your country’s statutory prohibitions against government censorship.
To make matters worse, Justice de Moraes chose to enforce his decision by freezing the assets of Starlink—even though Starlink is a separate company with different shareholders that has broken no laws.
Justice de Moraes has failed to respect universal and basic tenets of transparency, fair notice, and due process.
Indeed, it has now been revealed that Justice de Moraes has been sending social media companies secret orders to censor the political posts of elected members of Brazil’s Congress.
“If this sounds authoritarian, it is,” the Washington Post wrote this week about Justice de Moraes’s takedown campaign. Continuing, the Washington Post stated that Brazil’s recent moves come “at a substantial cost to free expression—with mandates for removals and even arrest warrants often issued under seal and with scant reasoning to support them.”
“Brazilians shouldn’t have to put up with government suppressing political viewpoints,” it concluded.
While Justice de Moraes’s actions mirror crackdowns on free speech that are taking place across the globe, I am not writing you today based on a generalized concern about free expression—though I believe strongly that communications regulators like us should stand against this trend towards censorship. Nor am I arguing that these actions by Brazil’s government somehow violate U.S. laws on free speech …
But according to Brazilian officials and legal authorities, Brazil is now violating its own laws through arbitrary and capricious actions against X and Starlink. Indeed, the Justice de Moraes decision runs headlong into Brazil’s own Constitution, which expressly prohibits “[a]ny and all censorship of a political, ideological and artistic nature,” as well as other provisions of Brazilian law that further guarantee freedom of expression.
The serious and apparently unlawful actions against X and Starlink cannot be squared with the principles of reciprocity, rule of law, and independence that have served as the foundation of the FCC and ANATEL relationship and the basis for reciprocal foreign investment.
I am therefore requesting a meeting with you to address and resolve these issues. If you prefer, I will come to you in Brazil to do so.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GWvIRY-WEAAfo-h.jpg)
@SarahSpain Buy something
@LeBatardShow @gregcote @jessica_smetana There is no paywall, here is the column https://t.co/PD0copWAP0
O ex condenado ataca (o seu bolso) novamente!
@ChrisWittyngham …You’re right Witty; Euros are better than the World Cup and good play is entertaining. Brasil won in 94 and 2002; but the 1982 team was the best one since 1970.
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk 
@elonmusk
241.1M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
119.1M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
112.5M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.8M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107.1M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
98.2M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.2M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
91.4M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
88.8M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
82.7M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
74.1M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
71.6M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
70.3M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.7M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
64.5M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
64.5M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.4M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.8M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
61.8M followers
X
@x
60.8M followers