Samanta Bullock

On Brazilian Justice de Moreas's order shutting down X: The text of his 51-page decision is far more concerning and sweeping than the headlines suggest. de Moreas’s own words make clear that he is attempting to strike a broader blow against free speech and in favor of authoritarian controls. His opinion does not even try to hide it. He comes right out and points to Brexit and the 2016 election of President Trump as examples, in his telling, of the types of extreme “populist” outcomes that he is attempting to avoid by imposing a new censorship regime in Brazil ahead the country’s elections later this year. But this type of censorship of a political and ideological nature is expressly prohibited by Brazil’s own Constitution. Nonetheless, de Morea argues that free speech on X cannot be allowed to continue because the diversity of political opinions expressed on the site might influence the people of Brazil ahead of their 2024 elections. See op. at 31-32. In other words, de Morea is arguing that free speech is a threat to democracy—a position that is as Orwellian as it is dangerous. The opposite is true. Free speech is democracy’s check on excessive government control. Censorship is the authoritarian’s dream. To dress up his decision, de Morea runs the warmed over playbook of labeling political speech that runs contrary to his own orthodoxy as “misinformation” and “disinformation.” But authoritarians like de Morea are not worried that people will be misled by the political messages they choose to read. He is worried that those messages will be effective. At bottom, this decision is part of a live, ongoing, and global debate between free speech and censorship, between freedom and control. It is imperative that free speech and freedom prevail. Or as the late NY Times editor John Oakes once said, “Diversity of opinion is the lifeblood of democracy. The minute we begin to insist that everyone think the same way we think, our democratic way of life is in danger.” Those are the stakes.