Source: Natural News | VIEW ORIGINAL POST ==>
Trump Media, Rumble sue Brazilian judge over censorship of U.S. conservatives
- Trump Media & Technology Group and Rumble sue Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes for allegedly overstepping authority by censoring U.S.-based political dissidents.
- The lawsuit claims Moraes issued secret orders to suppress conservative voices on American platforms, threatening First Amendment rights.
- Plaintiffs argue Moraes bypassed international legal frameworks, coercing Rumble to comply with Brazilian censorship mandates.
- The case seeks to declare Moraes’ orders unenforceable in the U.S., citing violations of the First Amendment and Communications Decency Act.
- The lawsuit highlights broader concerns about foreign censorship influencing American free speech and aims to set a legal precedent against judicial overreach.
President Donald Trump’s media company, Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG), and video-sharing platform Rumble have filed a lawsuit against Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on February 19, accuses Moraes of overstepping his authority by issuing secret orders to censor U.S.-based political dissidents and suppress conservative voices on American platforms. The case highlights growing concerns about foreign governments attempting to impose censorship on U.S. companies, threatening the First Amendment rights of millions.
The allegations against Justice Moraes
At the heart of the lawsuit are Moraes’ alleged “ultra vires” actions—orders that exceed his legal authority—to silence political dissent. The complaint claims Moraes issued secret directives demanding Rumble suspend accounts belonging to a U.S.-based Brazilian political dissident, referred to as “Political Dissident A.” The orders also prohibited Rumble from allowing the dissident to create new accounts and threatened severe penalties, including daily fines and a potential shutdown of the platform in Brazil.
The plaintiffs argue that Moraes’ actions are an attempt to enforce Brazilian speech restrictions on American soil. “Justice Moraes has issued sweeping orders to suspend multiple U.S.-based accounts… ensuring no person in the United States can see [Political Dissident A’s] content,” the lawsuit states. This, they claim, undermines the First Amendment’s protections of free speech and sets a dangerous precedent for foreign censorship influencing American platforms.
Rumble and TMTG warn that complying with Moraes’ orders would jeopardize the U.S. commitment to open and robust debate. “Allowing Justice Moraes to muzzle a vocal user on an American digital outlet would jeopardize our country’s bedrock commitment to open and robust debate,” the lawsuit asserts. The companies also accuse Moraes of bypassing international legal frameworks, such as the U.S.-Brazil Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT), which provides a formal process for cross-border legal actions. Instead, they argue, he has resorted to coercive tactics, including forcing Rumble to appoint local attorneys solely to accept his censorship mandates.
The lawsuit seeks to declare Moraes’ orders unenforceable in the United States, citing violations of the First Amendment and the Communications Decency Act (CDA). It also requests an injunction to prevent tech giants like Google and Apple from removing the Rumble app due to the Brazilian orders. The plaintiffs argue that enforcing these orders would “compel the suspension of accounts and block entire categories of political speech,” directly conflicting with U.S. laws protecting online platforms from liability for user-generated content.
Broader implications for global free speech
Justice Moraes has long been a controversial figure in Brazil’s judicial system, known for his aggressive measures against political speech. As the head of Brazil’s “Fake News Inquiry,” he has ordered the suspension of nearly 150 accounts belonging to journalists, legislators, and critics of the Brazilian government. His actions have drawn international criticism, with U.S. Vice President JD Vance recently denouncing global trends of judicial censorship at the Munich Security Conference. “We know very well in America that you cannot win a democratic mandate by censoring your opponents or putting them in jail,” Vance stated.
The lawsuit against Moraes is not just about one dissident or one platform—it’s about safeguarding American free speech from foreign interference. As the complaint puts it: “Only American law—rooted in the First Amendment—should regulate and govern these U.S.-based companies and their American operations.”
The case against Justice Alexandre de Moraes represents a critical moment in the global fight for free speech. By challenging the Brazilian judge’s overreach, Trump Media and Rumble are standing up for the principles of open debate and political discourse that are foundational to American democracy. If successful, this lawsuit could set a powerful legal precedent, reaffirming the limits of international judicial overreach and protecting the First Amendment rights of millions of Americans.
Sources for this article include:
