Bringing diplomacy into the digital age and underlining the reality that social media platforms often serve as virtual public forums, the US Embassy in Brasilia recently engaged on X in a heated exchange with the Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding freedom of expression after the suspension of the US-incorporated video sharing platform Rumble in Brazil. [1] As compliance teams seek to mitigate reputational risks posed by online disinformation, it is vital they stay abreast of geopolitical conflicts such as this.
Rumble’s suspension, which followed a February 2025 decision by the Brazilian Supreme Court, internationalized the debate about free speech and fact checking when the company sued a Brazilian Supreme Court Justice in a Florida federal court, claiming the suspension violates freedom of expression. [2] The Brazilian judge argued that Rumble ignored judicial orders to suspend the account of a right-wing influencer who has been living in the US since 2021, when an arrest warrant was issued against him in Brazil. [3] The judge also argued that Rumble failed to maintain legal representation in the country, as foreign companies are required to. [4] The Florida court issued an uncommon rebuke of another nation when it noted that the Brazilian legal orders were not properly served on plaintiffs pursuant to the Hague Convention and the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, which require orders to be submitted through a central authority, commonly the Department of State. Ultimately, the Florida court recognized that it lacks jurisdiction over Brazilian Supreme Court orders. [5] This lawsuit is ongoing.
This is not the first time social media platforms have been blocked in Brazil. Like Rumble, X was blocked in August 2024 after ignoring court orders to suspend accounts connected to what the court found to be anti-democratic movements and withdrawing its legal representation in Brazil. [6] When Meta, the owner of Facebook, Instagram, and Threads, announced in January 2025 that it would no longer use third-party fact checkers, but instead rely on community notes, the Brazilian Attorney General demanded an explanation. [7] The company informed Brazilian authorities that the trial change in policy would be effective only in the US. [8]
Article 19 of the Marco Civil da Internet
The Internet framework debate in Brazil is concentrated around Article 19 of the Marco Civil da Internet, implemented in 2014 as the first law in the country regulating use of the Internet. It resembles Section 230 of the US Communications Decency Act in that it establishes that social media platforms can be held liable for content posted by third parties only if they fail to obey court orders to remove such content. [9] It also requires that international companies that manage data in the country maintain Brazilian legal representation and a physical address in Brazil to receive court orders.
Since late 2024, the Brazilian Supreme Court has been deliberating on the constitutionality of Article 19. [10] Experts argue that Article 19, as it stands, protects platforms, since content removal has to be ordered by a court. Critics argue that the provision unduly exempts platforms from liability when hosting misinformation and content that incites hate. [11]
Unlike in the US, each Brazilian judge discloses his or her vote after sharing an analysis of the matter in sessions that are often open to the public and transmitted on the Court’s channel on television and on YouTube. Thus far, two of the 11 Supreme Court justices have voted in the matter, both holding that Article 19 should be deemed unconstitutional. [12] As there is no deadline by which the remaining nine justices must enter their votes, there is no date by which the Article will be declared constitutional or unconstitutional. If constitutional, the Article will remain in effect. If unconstitutional, platforms will become legally liable for content posted by users.
In the latter case, social media platforms in Brazil will have to pivot to policing third-party content, ramping up compliance teams with content moderation experts who review content in Brazil. This shift would reverse recent trends for US internet media companies like Meta and X and could result in a significant geographical divergence in online content. The immediate consequence would be that the same social media site viewed by users in Brazil and by users in the US might be entirely different, with US viewers privy to content denied Brazilians.
Thus far, the Brazilian Supreme Court appears to have taken to heart the Brazilian saying, “The Internet is not a No Man’s Land.”
