Amid intense political polarization in Brazil and the growth of opinion channels on social media, the name of Minister Alexandre de Moraes returned to the center of discussions after rumors about possible international sanctions against his actions in the Supreme Federal Court (STF).
Speculations gained traction after reports that an alleged letter from the U.S. government had been sent to the minister, warning him about his “abuses of authority.” The case provoked heated reactions from political commentators and influencers, who began predicting asset freezes, visa cancellations, and even imprisonment, based on the so-called “Magnitsky Act.”
According to lawyer Daniel Toledo, an expert in International Law, PhD in Constitutional Law, and founder of the firm Toledo e Advogados Associados, caution and technical knowledge are necessary when addressing the topic. “Many videos and posts are spreading a series of legal misconceptions. The Magnitsky Act, for example, has very specific objectives. It emerged in the U.S. in 2012 to punish those involved in serious human rights violations and international corruption. It does not automatically apply to any foreign authority,” he warns.
Toledo emphasizes that even in cases where sanctions are imposed, as happened with Russian authorities during the war in Ukraine, there is no direct link to internal judicial decisions or political actions of a sovereign country. “It’s important to remember that the United States does not need the Magnitsky Act to restrict visas or freeze assets. The U.S. government already has administrative means for that. And so far, there is no evidence that such sanctions are being applied to STF ministers,” he notes.
The role of YouTube and the debate over censorship
Part of the controversy also involves Minister Alexandre de Moraes’ decisions regarding the removal of content and profiles on platforms like YouTube and X (formerly Twitter). The debate intensified after businessman Elon Musk challenged STF rulings, arguing that his company could not be penalized for complying with U.S. legislation.
For Toledo, platforms operating commercially in Brazil must comply with Brazilian law. “If a foreign company operates in national territory, offers services, and profits from advertising targeted at Brazilians, it is subject to local laws. This includes, for example, the Civil Rights Framework for the Internet and the Consumer Defense Code. The same applies to tax obligations, legal representation, and liability for illegal content hosted on their domains,” he clarifies.
He points out that while judicial decisions can be debated and eventually reviewed, ignoring them may constitute disobedience and lead to measures such as blockades and economic sanctions. “The impasse with Elon Musk, for example, is not about freedom of expression but about jurisdiction. The Supreme Federal Court determined that the platform was being used to disseminate content violating Brazilian legislation and demanded action. Discussing the measure is legitimate. Completely ignoring it is not,” he states.
Distorted interpretations of the law fuel misinformation
Toledo also criticizes how influencers have interpreted excerpts of U.S. and Brazilian laws to support theories about the alleged international targeting of Moraes. “It’s common to see people without legal training taking isolated paragraphs and distorting the original meaning of the norms. The Magnitsky Act, for example, does not provide for automatic punishments. It requires investigations, concrete evidence, and a rigorous application process,” he analyzes.
He observes that the internet has become fertile ground for sensationalism. “Many channels are more concerned with monetizing engagement than legally clarifying what is happening. As a result, they inflame public sentiment, create unrealistic expectations, and contribute to the discrediting of institutions,” he says.
A critical point, according to Toledo, is that this misinformation scenario ends up having concrete impacts on people’s lives. “Many start believing that a minister will be arrested because of a letter from the United States. Others think that obtaining dual citizenship means they no longer have to answer to Brazilian justice. These are completely mistaken views that only fuel instability,” he highlights.
He also reminds that, in cases of potential lawsuits against an STF minister in international courts, taxpayers bear the defense costs. “Such lawsuits are expensive. Firms in the U.S. charge extremely high hourly rates. If a Brazilian minister is sued abroad for their official actions, the costs will be covered by public funds. It’s the citizen who pays this bill,” he warns.
Freedom of expression is not anonymity
Finally, Toledo reinforces that the Brazilian Constitution guarantees freedom of expression but prohibits anonymity. “Anyone can freely express themselves, including criticizing authorities. However, they must identify themselves and be accountable for their statements. Creating fake profiles or anonymous pages to spread unproven accusations is not freedom of expression. It’s cowardice and, often, a crime,” he concludes.
The lawyer argues that the debate over the limits of the Judiciary and press freedom is legitimate but must be conducted responsibly. “We need more legal education and less spectacle. Legal truth does not fit into sensational headlines. It requires study, reflection, and a commitment to facts,” he concludes.
