The Western Hemisphere Subcommittee convened this week to discuss the state of democracy and the rule of law in Brazil. Since the election of Brazilian President Lula da Silva, critics have warned that his policies will limit the freedoms of Brazilians. With reports of the Brazilian Supreme Court censoring opposition voices on social media, Florida Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar (R) questioned the censorship.
The Brazilian Supreme Court, under the direction of Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, has engaged in a prolonged legal dispute against X and other social media companies like Rumble to protect democracy. Just last month, Brazil’s Supreme Court announced that it would be investigating Elon Musk over the dissemination of fake news, opening a separate investigation into Musk for alleged obstruction. Musk has affirmed his commitment to protecting free speech, and he has accused Justice Moraes of not only suppressing free speech but of also violating Brazil’s constitution.
Rep. Salazar, the Chairwoman of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, defended Musk as an individual who believes in democracy as well as criticizing Justice Moraes and President Lula over their alleged usurpation of free speech and democracy in Brazil.
“Brazil not only has a felon convicted of political corruption as President, Lula da Silva, but now has a totalitarian operator as the Chief of Justice of the Supreme Court, Alexandre de Moraes,” she said.
“Elon Musk, the owner of Twitter, has become a target of the highest court because he is fighting against de Moraes’ curtailing of the most fundamental rights of the Brazilian people: the right to free speech.”
“The Brazilian people deserve a lot better,” Rep. Salazar lamented.
After President Lula defeated President Javier Bolsonaro, supporters of the former president claimed election fraud, storming Congress, and other buildings in the capital of Brasilia. As well, supporters called on the military to take over Brazil’s government.
In an effort to curb “disinformation,” Justice Moraes began to crack down on “misinformation” by directing social media companies to remove posts four months before the January election. Justice Moraes was also had near unilateral authority to choose content that was permissible to share.
