From the article:<p>> X has clashed with de Moraes over its reluctance to block users — mostly far-right activists accused of undermining Brazilian democracy and allies of former President Jair Bolsonaro — and has alleged that de Moraes wants an in-country legal representative so that Brazilian authorities can exert leverage over the company by having someone to arrest. And Musk has been relentlessly posting in recent days, lambasting de Moraes as a criminal.<p>What a colossal amount of doublethink. Why would a court require a corporation to provide a legal representative as a requirement to operate in a country? Why would the court have a need to contact your company? Why would a court have any motivation to arrest a legal representative of a corporation after reaching out to said corporation through the designated chanel to send a legal request?<p>It's unbelievable how these guys omit themselves from even being an active participant in the ordeal when they are in fact the whole instigators.
Since this drama keeps showing up, I looked into it.<p>This all started because Elon Musk actively chose to give voice to <i>specific</i> known terrorists. This really isn't about political speech, there was actual violence involved (that's the definition of a terrorist).<p>The way the judge is mingling assets stored in different companies (just because they have some common ownership) isn't how things usually work in America, but we shouldn't expect such paper shields to hold up so easily everywhere.<p>As for the much-quoted "threatened to arrest the legal representative [note: I'm pretty sure it's not 'someone acting as a lawyer', but more like 'regional representative of the company']" - what do you expect when you refuse to obey a court order? Arrests happen for that in America too.<p>I don't speak enough Portuguese to read <i>all</i> the original sources without machine translation, but I saw enough that I'm pretty sure I got the gist of it, even if I didn't go through all the procedural details.