Александр де Мораес, цензура та YouTube: що таке міф, що таке факт і що говорить закон

Amidst intense political polarization in Brazil and the growth of opinion channels on social media, Minister Alexandre de Moraes' name has returned to the centre of discussion following rumours of potential international sanctions against his actions at the Supreme Federal Tribunal (STF). 

Speculation intensified after the alleged release of a letter from the US government to the minister, reportedly warning him about his "abuse of authority". The case sparked heated reactions from political commentators and influencers, who began predicting asset freezes, visa cancellations, and even imprisonment, citing the alleged application of the "Magnitsky Act".

For the lawyer Даніель Толедоspecialist in International Law, Doctor of Constitutional Law, and founder of the firm Toledo and Associates SolicitorsCare and technical knowledge are required when addressing this topic. "Many videos and posts are spreading a series of legal errors. The Magnitsky Act, for example, has very specific aims. It originated in the US 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 highlights that, even in cases where sanctions are imposed, as happened with Russian authorities during the war in Ukraine, there's no direct link to internal judicial decisions or the political actions of a sovereign nation. "It's important to remember that the United States doesn't need the Magnitsky Act to restrict visas or freeze assets. The American government already has administrative means to do so. And, to date, there's no evidence that these sanctions are being applied to ministers of the STF," he observes.

The Role of YouTube and the Censorship Debate

Part of the controversy also involves decisions by Minister Alexandre de Moraes regarding the removal of content and profiles from platforms such as YouTube and X (formerly Twitter). The debate intensified after entrepreneur Elon Musk challenged decisions of the STF, arguing that his company could not be penalized for complying with US law.

For Toledo, platforms operating commercially in Brazil must comply with Brazilian law. "If a foreign company operates on national territory, offers services, and profits from advertising targeted at Brazilians, it is subject to local laws. This includes, for example, the Marco Civil da Internet and the Consumer Defence Code. The same applies to tax obligations, legal representation, and responsibility for illicit content hosted on their domains," he clarifies.

He recalls that, while court decisions can be debated and eventually overturned, ignoring them can constitute disobedience and trigger measures such as blockades and economic sanctions. "The impasse with Elon Musk, for example, isn't about freedom of speech, but about jurisdiction. The Supreme Federal Court deemed that the platform was being used to disseminate content that violated Brazilian law, and demanded action. Debating the measure is legitimate. Ignoring it completely, is not," he points out.

Distorted interpretations of the law fuel misinformation.

Toledo also criticises how influencers have interpreted sections of American and Brazilian laws to support theories about a supposed international siege on Moraes. "It's common to see people without legal training taking isolated paragraphs and distorting the original meaning of the regulations. The Magnitsky Act, for example, doesn't provide for automatic penalties. It requires investigations, concrete evidence, and a meticulous application process," he analyses.

He observes that the internet has become fertile ground for sensationalism. "Many channels are more concerned with monetising engagement than with legally clarifying what is happening. This inflames the public, creates unrealistic expectations, and contributes to the discrediting of institutions," he states.

A critical point, according to Toledo, is that this disinformation scenario ends up having concrete impacts on people's lives. "Many people begin to believe a minister will be arrested because of a letter from the United States. Others think obtaining dual citizenship is enough to avoid Brazilian justice. These are completely mistaken views that only fuel instability," he stresses.

He still remembers that, in the event of a lawsuit against an STF minister in international courts, the costs of defence are borne by taxpayers. "Such proceedings are expensive. Law firms in the US charge exorbitant hourly rates. If a Brazilian minister is sued abroad for their official actions, the costs will be covered by public funds. It is the citizen who foots the bill," he warns.

Freedom of expression is not anonymity.

Finally, Toledo stresses that the Brazilian Constitution guarantees freedom of expression, but prohibits anonymity. "Anyone can express themselves freely, including criticising authorities. However, they must identify themselves and be accountable for their statements. Creating fake profiles or anonymous pages to spread accusations without proof is not freedom of expression. It is cowardice and, often, a crime," he concludes.

The lawyer argues that debate about the limits of the judiciary and freedom of the press is legitimate, but must be conducted responsibly. "More legal education and less spectacle are needed. Legal truth does not fit into inflammatory headlines. It requires study, careful consideration, and a commitment to the facts," he concludes.