Given that, under Musk, Twitter has caved into such governments as Turkey and India when presented with a censor-or-quit ultimatum, one would think the historical precedent of what Twitter will do is clear.
Unless Musk's principle is really that one needs to bow down to right-wing attempts to censor speech, and a left-wing attempt to censor speech must be resisted at all costs.
(Either way, Musk's adherence to the principle of standing up for free speech universally is very poor, and I truly marvel at anyone who believes him to be a defender of free speech.)
He caves to requests from autocrats and fights requests from independent judiciaries in liberal democracies. That's the more salient dividing line than right vs left.
This is a false narrative. Twitter has said they’ll abide by local laws. In Turkey and India, they did. In Brazil, they’ve made the claim formally that unilateral secret censorship orders from one justice are not legal per Brazil’s own constitution, and so they cannot comply.
You’re using this false equivalence to attack Musk and Twitter as unprincipled when they’re actually being principled.
I believe in Brazil the ultimate authority on the interpretation of the constitution is the one who has told Twitter what they need to do. Such a court saying "your interpretation is wrong, this is what the law says" is by definition the local law to which they need to abide by.
Disobeying that court order means breaking the local law of the land. It is completely fair to ask the question why Twitter seems willing to argue that the courts in one country are wrong and the courts in another country are right, when both courts perhaps seem to violate their own constitution. What is their fundamental principle to choose when they declare a court empowered to interpret its own constitution is doing it wrong?
(I'll note that part of Mike Masnick's excellent speedrunning content moderation is a step noticing that it's not actually a good idea to abide by all countries' local laws, because many countries have local laws that people would get upset at you for abiding by.)
I am reading what you’re saying as a belief that governments don’t make mistakes or don’t abuse their power. And that their action should not be questioned or challenged. But I feel all governments are not trustworthy - even in the US where constitutional protection and legal process is great, there are flaws or mistakes or abuses.
In Brazil’s case - when the order to perform censorship is secret, and when the people arguing against censorship are not allowed to have legal representation without implied threats of arrest, how can the public even know of or debate the legality of these orders? It creates an opening for abuse of power, which is exactly what is happening here in my opinion.
By the way, each of the other countries you are referencing is a different situation with different nuances. For example, regarding the liability of lawyers representing defendants. Or whether the orders are done and secret. Or what their constitution says. It’s been a while since I dived into this but my recollection was that Twitter correctly complied in other cases (legally not morally) and is correct to take a stand here.
In Brazil’s case, it is important to note that there has been no new legislation that granted these powers to this single Supreme Court justice who is unilaterally issuing secret orders for censorship. Orders are not issued by the judicial bench as a whole. Some of the other justices have spoken in support of the approach, but it is possible that they are themselves acting out of fear because of how things have gone. For his part, De Moraes claims his power comes from a different court (to simplify, Brazil has two different top level courts with different powers) but it is suspect because courts cannot make laws and because he served in that court previously.
Ultimately though, censorship is bad. Free speech is good. And even if it was legal I think the use of such power is highly unethical and not compatible with democracies. For that alone, I feel Twitter / X is on the right side of this issue, independent of legalities or what the situation is in other countries.
Having to cave to countries pushing for more and more content control is what their predecessors made possible. And it isn't just Turkey or India, it is the US and parts of Europe too.
For years there were arguments that a private platform could censor what they like. I guess some people are just ignoring the repercussions.
Unless Musk's principle is really that one needs to bow down to right-wing attempts to censor speech, and a left-wing attempt to censor speech must be resisted at all costs.
(Either way, Musk's adherence to the principle of standing up for free speech universally is very poor, and I truly marvel at anyone who believes him to be a defender of free speech.)