The gag orders were only released by X, not by the court. The only reason we know what they contain at all is because of X. You can read them here: https://nitter.poast.org/AlexandreFiles
They gave X just hours to censor a sitting Brazilian senator and censored entire accounts without identifying any specific posts alleged to violate the law. It's interesting that the current version of this news article does not appear to mention the actual orders at all, instead linking to some secondary reporting by a Brazilian outlet.
Thank you. Was X prohibited from releasing them by the orders?
Yes, you can see the CONFIDENTIAL stamps on them in the lower left corner of the orders. For example, look at the bottom left of this image:
https://nitter.poast.org/pic/orig/media%2FGWzpltMWQAAosr3.pn...
Note that Brazilian Portuguese uses exactly the same word we do in English, though it's pronounced slightly differently, the end of the word sounding like see-al.
I can confirm this due to having a native speaker of Brazilian Portuguese right next to me at this very second, who also confirmed to me that yes, the CONFIDENTIAL stamp on the order really does mean that X was not permitted to release this order.
Why do people still repeat this?
People miss the fact the judge gave orders to suppress his personal misdeeds and that the orders to Twitter asked them to take down accounts and posts without revealing it was a judicial order. Or even the reason for the ban.
Imagine getting banned from social media, the operator tells you it's for a TOS violation or tells you nothing. You don't realize it's from a court. That's what's this is about.
They were literally in secret - as in, the orders tell Twitter to comply and to do so in secret. See the actual order for yourself:
https://x.com/AlexandreFiles/status/1829979981130416479
> Would this also ban spam filters? Fraud convictions? If not then there are obviously caveats to when and how one can censor.
It would ban a government spam filter yes. I am not sure how fraud matters here, but I am guessing you’re saying that speech that constitutes fraud can be censored. But this is a lot more basic - the banning of currently sitting elected officials from social media.
> Also, why isn’t Article 220 ¶ 5 the relevant one [1]? Article 5 has 74 sections. Genuine question, I have no knowledge of Brazilian law.
Brazil’s constitution isn’t as well written as some other countries like the US. It is really long and there are many redundant and conflicting sections. Article 220 is in Title 8 (social order). Article 5 is in Title 2 (fundamental rights) and is more important. In article 5, look at 9 or 37 as examples that the actions of Alexandre de Moraes violates.
Is the first image the actual order? Seems weird for it to say “including that of a sitting Brazilian senator.”
One of those oddities of the current experience there is that you can't see that there's another message in the thread if you're viewing it while not logged in.
> Would this also ban spam filters? Fraud convictions? > But these are straw men
Anyway, at least in the US (but I also assume similar provisions in other countries as well) the 5th amendment generally only applies to the government, not companies and private individuals (in a way you deciding to "censor" someone is an expression of your free speech).
We can debate principles and even the legality of these actions. But they weren't done in secret. (EDIT: I may be mistaken in this claim.)
> Article 5 of the Brasil constitution guarantees a right to free speech without censorship
Would this also ban spam filters? Fraud convictions? If not then there are obviously caveats to when and how one can censor. (No right can be absolute. If it were, it would merit infinite sacrifice to uphold.)
Also, why isn’t Article 220 ¶ 5 the relevant one [1]? Article 5 has 74 sections. Genuine question, I have no knowledge of Brazilian law.
> taking money out of them - let’s call this what it is, theft
A court that can’t find people in contempt isn’t a court.
Again, we can debate the principles. But these are straw men.
[1] https://www.oas.org/es/sla/ddi/docs/acceso_informacion_base_...