'Alexandre Files', the official X account that denounces illegalities of the Brazilian Supreme Court judge

It's X's turn. After Judge Alexandre de Moraes blocked Elon Musk's operation of the social network in Brazil, the tycoon responded by creating an account (@AlexandreFiles) that promises to air out daily illegalities of the judge. Or, in Musk's words, "the evil deeds of Brazil’s Voldemort."

The tycoon pointed out that the posts show that Moraes has violated the laws of his own country like no one else.

He also assured that the more the Brazilians themselves are aware of these conducts, "the worse it will get for him." Whether this content will reach them, however, is far from certain: with X blocked by order of Moraes, Brazilians can only access it at the risk of fines and by using a technological service called a virtual private network (VPN).

The posts of @AlexandreFiles follow in the wake of the so-called Brazil's Twitter Files, revelations that the platform had been pressured by Brazilian President Lula da Silva and Moraes himself to censor dissenting voices. (Which, in turn, followed in the wake of the Twitter Files in the United States.)

In one of its first posts, the account shares an order from the member of the Supreme Federal Court demanding the blocking of several people within two hours under penalty of daily fines for non-compliance in the thousands of reais (the local currency), and to do so in secret, according to X.

Among the accounts included were one of a sitting senator, Marcos Ribeiro Do Val, and another of an underage girl. X contrasts the judge's demand with excerpts from local laws, implying that the latter is in violation of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression and prohibits censorship, and of internet regulations that require court orders to include "a clear and specific identification" of the transgressor content.

Ten days later, Moraes published a decision explaining the order. @AlexandreFiles shared that text in Portuguese and English and focused on the alleged reasons in favor of censoring Senator Marcos do Val: a series of posts on social networks against the judge and a police chief, including the claim that he would investigate them (words that the judge considered intimidating). This, the account states, violates "Articles 5 and 220 of the Brazilian Constitution."

Under the table

All these publications are necessary, they claim at X, because the judge made every decision in secret and because the local courts ignored every attempt of appeal from both the company and third parties.

The judge's own secrecy is illegal, they claim: it violates the Brazilian Constitution. So it claims, for example, in relation to an order by Moraes in early 2023 demanding the suspension of three accounts:

"The order was issued in secret, which violates article 5, LX of the Brazilian Federal Constitution, which states that judicial decisions must be public, other than in exceptional cases when the public interest requires it. The order provides no reason to justify the secrecy and merely serves to avoid public scrutiny."

Against elected officials

Like Senator Ribeiro Do Val, the judge demanded the network to block the accounts of legislators Alan Rick and Nikolas Ferreira, which, X argues, undermines the special protection of elected officials:

"The order blocks the accounts of sitting federal legislators Alan Rick and Nikolas Ferreira. This violates Article 53 of the Federal Constitution, which explicitly states that legislators’ opinions, words, and votes are inviolable."

Conservatives caught in the crosshairs

@AlexandreFiles points out that in addition to journalists and politicians, Moraes targets ordinary citizens.

He exemplifies this with an order signed by the judge demanding the censorship of three accounts (@KatiaGraceli, @rossi_beto and @ramiromarlucia). All three with "a small number" of followers, all three manifestly conservative (one has former president Jair Bolsonaro in its profile picture, the others claim to be right-wing in their biography).

"Most likely, they were censored because Moraes opposed their political beliefs," it concludes after noting that the judicial order includes neither examples of illegalities nor written arguments justifying the blocking.