by Didi Rankovic at Reclaim the Net
The judge’s ruling reinforces that foreign censorship demands cannot bypass US legal protections.
A federal judge in Florida has denied a request from Trump Media and video platform Rumble to block enforcement of orders issued by Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, ruling that the case is not yet ripe for judicial review.
We obtained a copy of the order for you here.
However – that’s not because Rumble and Trump Media have no grounds – it’s because both companies “were not served upon Plaintiffs in compliance with the Hague Convention, to which the United States and Brazil are both signatories nor were they served pursuant to the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty between the United States and Brazil.”
The two platforms have been at the forefront in the fight against censorship. In a win for free speech, the court ruled that the direct demands of Rumble and Truth are not through “established protocols” and so Plaintiffs [Rumble and Truth] are not obligated to comply with the directives and pronouncements, and no one is authorized or obligated to assist in their enforcement against Plaintiffs or their interests here in the United States.”
The immediate dispute revolves around a conservative Brazilian commentator living in the US, referred to in the lawsuit as Political Dissident A. This commentator, a vocal critic of the Brazilian Supreme Court, has been accused of “anti-democratic” speech—a charge that US courts would almost certainly dismiss as constitutionally protected under the First Amendment.
US District Judge Mary S. Scriven effectively stated that the…
Continue Reading