SAO PAULO (AP) — Elon Musk’s satellite-based internet service provider Starlink backtracked Tuesday and said it will comply with a Brazilian Supreme Court justice’s order to block the billionaire’s social media platform, X.

Starlink said in a statement posted on X that it will heed Justice Alexandre de Moraes’ order despite him having frozen the company’s assets. Previously, it informally told the telecommunications regulator that it would not comply until de Moraes reversed course.

“Regardless of the illegal treatment of Starlink in freezing our assets, we are complying with the order to block access to X in Brazil,” the company statement said. “We continue to pursue all legal avenues, as are others who agree that @alexandre’s recent order violate the Brazilian constitution.”

  • Blaine@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    36
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    What a braindead take.

    You’ve never heard of biased, politically motivated supreme court justices? That’s… hard to believe. You should Google “Roe v Wade” and then check back. How can two different versions of a supreme court rule completely differently on the same issue if the underlying constitution hasn’t changed?

    Read the relevant parts of their constitution, then check the supreme courts decision, and let me know how you think it makes sense.

    • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      2 months ago

      You’ve never heard of biased, politically motivated supreme court justices?

      And the solution is a billionaire and his vanity project flagrantly ignoring the Supreme Court?

    • Yeller_king@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 months ago

      Alright. What is starlink’s legal path to overturn the decision? Whether the decision makes sense or not doesn’t change what the decision was.

    • irotsoma@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Point isn’t whether it’s right or not. The point is that once the supreme court rules, there’s no “higher” court to take it to. The lower courts can’t rule differently on something explicitly ruled on already, and they can’t “overrule” the supreme court since they are explicitly “under” them. So regardless of what Starlink says, they aren’t going to change that, at least not any time soon. And X will either be dead, irrelevant, or significantly modified by the time the court changes enough to get them to change their decision.

      • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        I’m not fully in the loop, but wasn’t it just 1 judge and could be challenged to all of them, but then all of them sided with the 1?

    • CurlyWurlies4All@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      The issue is when you refuse to engage in the legal process at all you lose the right to find compromise. It’s the same reason Alex Jones was defaulted.

    • zbyte64@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      People keep telling me to go into research but none of them are willing to pay for my time