According to a committee document from the North American Chamber of Deputies, the minister would not have liked the YouTuber’s statement about him

The Judicial Affairs Committee of the United States House of Representatives said in a document released on Wednesday (April 17, 2024) that the influencer, podcaster and YouTuber, Bruno Aiub Monteiro, known as Monark, was “censored” by Minister Alexandre de Moraes, of the STF (Supreme Federal Court), for precisely criticizing the censorship allegedly practiced by the minister. Read the full report, in English (PDF – 37 MB).

The document cites the blocking of Monark’s accounts, ordered by Moraes, under the allegation that the influencer had disclosed “fraudulent news” on actions by the STF and the TSE (Superior Electoral Court). Read the full decision (PDF 617 kB) of June 13, 2023, in which Alexandre de Moraes determines the “exceptional departure from individual guarantees” in your orders to remove content and block social media accounts.

At the time, on his channel on the Rumble platform (which decided to leave Brazil due to disagreements with the Brazilian justice system at the end of 2023), Monark stated:

Every time the Supreme Court makes a move like this [determina o bloqueio de contas], he spends political chips. This comes at a cost to him. […] So why does he [Supremo] Are you willing to pay this cost? Because he [Supremo] Are you willing to guarantee non-transparency in elections? We see the TSE censoring people, we see Alexandre de Moraes arresting people, you see a lot of things happening, and, at the same time, they are preventing the transparency of the ballot boxes? You become suspicious, what madness is happening at the polls there? Why? Why does our political system not want to let the Brazilian people have more security? What is the interest? Manipulate the ballot boxes? Manipulate the elections?”.

The commission states that Moraes specifically disagreed with Monark’s statements about him. As an example, highlight an excerpt from the speech above: “We see the TSE censoring people, we see Alexandre de Moraes arresting people”. In the assessment of Americans, “Moraes ordered the censure of a Brazilian citizen for criticizing Moraes for censoring Brazilians”.

Before having his accounts blocked, in an interview carried out in February 2022 with federal deputies Kim Kataguiri (União Brasil-SP) and Tabata Amaral (PSB-SP), when he was part of the “Flow Podcast”, Monark stated that “there should be a legalized Nazi party in Brazil”. The repercussion led to the dismissal of the influencer, who created a podcast called “Monark Talks”, on Rumble, where he made the statements cited by the North American commission.

The accusation against Moraes is part of a series of documents in which the US Congress committee states that the minister censures any Brazilian opposition with “a platform for criticism” to the current “left-wing government”, in reference to President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT). The investigation began after the announcement of the blocking of X accounts in Brazil and a public clash between the owner of the platform, businessman Elon Musk, and Moraes (read more below).


For the constitutional lawyer and columnist for Poder360 André Marseille, or “exceptional departure from individual guarantees” mentioned in the decision is unconstitutional and violates the Democratic Rule of Law. He also states that the justification would be unprecedented in known decisions of the Supreme Court and, in the case of other mentions in confidential actions, it would not be exceptional, as mentioned in the decision.

“Banning accounts is prior censorship. Crime is assumed and future manifestations are prevented by blocking profiles. Crime is not presupposed, and by preventing future demonstrations, lawful ones are also prevented, affecting the user’s freedom of expression”, criticized Marsigilia in your profile not X.

Marsiglia also draws attention to the Monark decision for “the excerpts that attribute criminal conduct to him” what “confuse misinformation/fraudulent news with opinion”.

For the lawyer, “opinion is not committed to the neutrality of information, it is someone’s private view of the world. And it is not up to the State to say what opinion its individuals should have, under penalty of violating article 37 of the Constitution, which imposes on it the duty of impersonality”. Here is what this excerpt from the Magna Carta says:

Art. 37. The direct and indirect public administration of any of the Powers of the Union, the States, the Federal District and the Municipalities will comply with the principles of legality, impersonality, morality, publicity and efficiency.

“Opinion is subject to punishment if it undermines someone’s honor, but it cannot be considered disinformation, as expressed in the decision [contra Monark]. There is, in my opinion, a relevant technical inaccuracy in the main foundation of a decision that, by seriously restricting the podcaster’s freedom of expression, becomes censorship.”near Marseille.

In short, for the lawyer, when someone says they have doubts about the fairness of the electoral process, expresses annoyance about judicial decisions and issues a critical opinion about what a STF minister does, this could not be considered an act of misinformation or an attack on democracy.

Read more:


Alexandre de Moraes determined on April 7 the inclusion of the owner of X as being investigated in the digital militias inquiry, filed in July 2021 and which investigates groups for conduct against democracy.

The minister also opened a new investigation to investigate Elon Musk’s conduct. The magistrate wants the crime of obstruction of justice to be investigated, “including criminal organization and incitement to crime”.

On April 6, Elon Musk asked why Minister Alexandre de Moraes “No Brazil demands so much censorship”. The businessman responded to a publication by the minister in X on January 11th.

Musk’s comment followed accusations made by American journalist Michael Shellenberger on April 3. According to Shellenberger, the minister has “led a case of widespread repression of freedom of expression in Brazil”.

The critical comments escalated the tone and Musk said that he is thinking about closing Twitter in Brazil and that he will publicize Moraes’ demands that violate laws. He also called the minister “tyrant”, “totalitarian” e “draconiano”saying he should “resign or be impeached”.

Know more:


On April 3, American journalist Michael Shellenberger published an alleged exchange of emails between employees of the legal sector of X in Brazil between 2020 and 2022 talking about requests and court orders received regarding content from its users.

The messages would show requests from various instances of the Brazilian Judiciary requesting personal data from users who used hashtags about the electoral process and content moderation.

Shellenberger specifically criticized STF (Supreme Federal Court) minister Alexandre de Moraes, criticizing him for “leading a case of widespread repression of freedom of expression in Brazil”.

According to him, Moraes issued decisions by the TSE (Superior Electoral Court) that “threaten democracy in Brazil” when asking for interventions in publications by members of the National Congress and personal account data – which would violate the platform’s guidelines. The records of the processes mentioned in the case are confidential.

The case was named Twitter Files Brazil in reference to the Twitter Files originally published in 2022, after Musk purchased X, in October of that year.

At the time, Musk delivered material to journalists that indicated how the social network, in the 2020 North American elections, collaborated with United States authorities to block users and suppress stories involving the son of the country’s presidential candidate Joe Biden.

The files published by journalists include email exchanges that reveal, to some extent, how Twitter reacted to requests from governments to intervene in the policy of publishing and removing content. In some cases, the social network ended up giving in.

In the Brazilian case, Musk was not indicated as the source who provided the material, however, the businessman criticized Moraes for a few days.

Read the main reactions below:


Leave a Reply