The Truth About Brazil's Rumble Ban
Justice Alexandre de Moraes has shut down Rumble in Brazil, using the same dubious legal arguments that led to the blocking of X and Telegram.
If you thought Brazilian Supreme Federal Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes' clash with Elon Musk was an isolated incident, you were mistaken. Moraes has now declared a new enemy—Chris Pavlovski, CEO of the video platform Rumble. On Friday, February 20, history repeated itself when Moraes ordered the suspension of yet another social media platform in Brazil.
The allegations supposedly justifying Rumble's shutdown are nearly identical to those used in the decisions that led to the blocking of X last year and Telegram in 2022. Despite the lack of clear legal grounds allowing the judiciary to ban someone from having social media profiles, Moraes ordered Rumble to remove the account of blogger Allan dos Santos—who, it's worth noting, does not even reside in Brazil. The platform refused to comply with this order, as well as an order to appoint a legal representative in the country. These refusals were enough for Moraes to further suffocate Brazilians' freedom of expression.
Moraes' ruling not only broadens the discussion on digital censorship but also exposes the weakening of democratic institutions in Brazil. No single minister should have the power to shut down entire social media platforms in the country. Yet, Moraes has done this twice in two years—without any public debate or clear limits.
The text of the ruling makes the situation even more indefensible. To justify Rumble's ban, Moraes invokes the events of January 8—when supporters of former President Jair Bolsonaro stormed Brazil's Congress, Supreme Court, and presidential palace, protesting against President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's election victory—arguing that social media platforms are being used to attack democracy. This argument has become a blank check for any authoritarian measure imposed by the Supreme Court. Anything can be labeled a "democratic threat" if it means more power to censor, fine, or imprison opponents.
In his ruling, Moraes states, "The investigated party's publications cannot be interpreted in isolation, as they are part of a coordinated set of actions that demonstrate a criminal organization aimed at destabilizing the democratic rule of law." But what truly threatens democracy: The free circulation of opinions or a minister who disregards institutional limits and censors entire platforms with a single stroke of his pen? Moraes himself has long contributed to this democratic erosion by concentrating power that no magistrate should wield.
A Supreme Court minister should not act as a political actor, much less shape public debate to suit his convenience. Their role should be to uphold the constitution, not to dictate which opinions can or cannot circulate. Yet the ruling goes on to say, "It is unacceptable for digital platforms to serve as tools for fostering criminal polarization and the corrosion of the democratic rule of law." By addressing polarization, Moraes exposes his own bias. He does not position himself above the political fray—on the contrary, he has already picked a side and uses the judiciary as a tool to silence the other.
Moraes goes so far as to cite a photo of Allan dos Santos standing in front of the Supreme Court, giving the middle finger, as evidence of "a high degree of dangerousness." The level of legal distortion is so extreme that an obscene gesture is now equated with a real threat to democracy. If this is the new standard, it won't be long before any criticism is deemed a crime and any opponent is treated as an enemy of the regime.
Without the right to free expression, criticism turns into a crime, and silence becomes the norm. Every attack on freedom of expression brings us closer to a reality where all liberties can be silenced. It is crucial to remember that this process does not happen overnight—every step in this direction is a clear warning that if nothing is done, all democratic structures will collapse.
