![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
Gabriel Fialho
@tzz_gabriel
20y - Ciência da Computação - UFMG
best friends: @elonmusk @neymarjr
BH-JM MG
Joined October 2020
301 Following
61 Followers
7.4K Posts
Pinned Tweet
Drift Touge Akagi Mountain Pass - Gunma, Japan
Chevrolet Corvette 1095 bhp
Pessoal, preciso de recomendação de professor de espanhol online
@enriq_arthur salve leks de boassss
Foi um orgulho, obrigado! 🦊💙🫡
mbappe e o maior bagre do futebol mundial kkkkkkkkkk
Kkkkkkkkkkkkkkk q mitada mano
A verdade é que nunca mais o Pedrinho vai esquecer o passeio com a professora Teresa.
parece q eu to vendo um monte de npc jogando com a camisa da seleção pqp
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)
As ordens ilegais de Alexandre de Moraes censuraram não apenas políticos e jornalistas proeminentes, mas também cidadãos brasileiros comuns.
Nesta ordem do dia 9 de marco de 2023, o ministro, a exemplo de outras ordens semelhantes, ordenou, de maneira secreta, a censura das contas pertencentes a Katia Graceli (@KatiaGraceli), Beto Rossi (@rossi_beto) e Lucinha Ramiro (@ramiromarlucia). A ordem viola as garantias constitucionais ao devido processo legal, à liberdade de expressão e à proteção de dados pessoais.
As contas dos mencionados cidadãos eram seguidas por um pequeno número de pessoas e suas postagens expressavam apenas apoio a pontos de vista e políticos conservadores.
Moraes não conseguiu identificar uma única postagem ilegal por parte de nenhum desses indivíduos, e muito menos o motivo pelo qual as contas teriam que ser integralmente bloqueadas. Muito provavelmente, foram censurados porque Moraes discordava de suas crenças políticas.
Moraes afirma que está protegendo a democracia. Mas censurar um lado de um debate político é o oposto da democracia.
tadinho dele ta achando q tem justiça no país q o presidente saiu diretamente do presidio
ta foda isso aq tá...
There is no legal basis for this whatsoever.
Starlink is a different company with different shareholders.
Moraes, the charlatan in judges robes, cannot even cite a law that Starlink has broken!
Outra ilegalidade praticada pelo Ministro Alexandre de Moraes foi a decisão proferida em janeiro de 2023, na qual determinou o bloqueio integral de todas as redes sociais de algumas personalidades brasileiras, como, por exemplo:
- O apresentador Monark (conhecido como o “Joe Rogan Brasileiro”)
- O senador brasileiro Alan Rick
- O Deputado Federal Nikolas Ferreira, que foi o deputado mais votado da história do país
A decisão é inconstitucional por 5 (cinco) diferentes motivos:
(1) A decisão viola a liberdade de expressão, garantida pelo art. 5º, inciso IV, da Constituição Federal.
Neste ponto, é importante mencionar que o Ministro Alexandre de Moraes desconsiderou decisões anteriores nas quais o Supremo Tribunal Federal reconheceu que a liberdade de expressão abarca não apenas o direito de emitir opiniões, mas também o direito dos indivíduos de manifestar, conhecer e analisar diferentes pontos de vista sobre determinado assunto.
(2) A decisão foi proferida em sigilo, violando o art. 5º, inciso LX, da Constituição Federal, segundo o qual a lei só poderá restringir a publicidade dos atos processuais quando a defesa da intimidade ou o interesse social assim exigirem. No caso mencionado, não há justificativa para a confidencialidade da decisão
(3) A determinação encaminhada não foi acompanhada de uma decisão judicial proferida de maneira fundamentada. Tal circunstância viola o art. 5º, LV, da Constituição Federal, que garante aos jurisdicionados o devido processo legal e, consequentemente, o direito ao recurso. Desta forma, o X não sabe sequer a razão pela qual as contas foram bloqueadas, prejudicando sobremaneira o direito ao recurso.
(4) A decisão determinou o bloqueio das contas dos parlamentares federais Alan Rick e Nikolas Ferreira, violando, desta forma, o art. 53 da Constituição Federal, que garante aos deputados e senadores a inviolabilidade por quaisquer opiniões palavras e votos.
(5) A decisão viola a garantia à autodeterminação informativa, prevista no art. 5º, LXXIX, da Constituição Federal, e consiste no direito que os indivíduos têm de controlar e proteger seus próprios dados pessoais. Ao ordenar o bloqueio das contas, o ministro privou seus titulares do direito de controlar e até mesmo acessar uma série de dados pessoais.
Cruzeiro é quinto colocado e a gente trata como se estivesse numa crise fudida, o Twitter tem que cair msm kkkkkkkk
@robsomjunio @Centraldoocec a gente tem o guardiola brasileiro paizão, seabra entende muito de futebol
@Centraldoocec pqppppp e tem cruzeirense achando certo kkkkkkkkk
pode derrubar todos esses ok
How quickly times change
papo reto pqpppppp bostil
Ngm proíbe a Blaze e o jogo do tigrinho, mas o Twitter vão tirar…. Kkkkkk que bizarro
Ngm proíbe a Blaze e o jogo do tigrinho, mas o Twitter vão tirar…. Kkkkkk que bizarro
🎙️| INGRATIDÃO
Matheus Pereira pediu mais paciência com o Seabra, disse que ele faz um bom trabalho e que é preciso deixá-lo trabalhar. Antes, havia dito que sente ingratidão ao treinador do Cruzeiro.
@trivela
llkkkkkkkkkk o cara tampando só os olhos das mulheres e falando q n dá pra reconhecer shhshsjhdjdjssjs
@doutorpiramide as fotos são pequenas, não dá para perceber, e eu escondi o sobrenomes.
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk 
@elonmusk
241.5M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
118.9M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
114.6M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.8M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107.1M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
98.7M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.3M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
91.8M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
90.1M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
84M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
75.5M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
73.5M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
70.9M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.8M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
66.6M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
65.3M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
63.1M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.2M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.7M followers
X
@x
60.7M followers