The CEO of the video program Rumble, Christopher , Pavlovski, told Congress on Tuesday that his company made the” strong decision” to leave the market in Brazil due to cruel demands from the nation’s remaining- wing courts to judge “unpopular” opinions.
Pavlovski was one of the various witnesses who were asked to testify before the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday about the deterioration of Brazilian civil rights under the leadership of restricted journalists and Portuguese Supreme Court justice Alexandre de Moraes. One of the four witnesses who were invited to speak argued that the repression was required in lighting of the riots that occurred on January 8, 2023, following Lula’s return to power.
On Tuesday, Pavlovski said,” Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are the foundation of a political society”, and Brazil’s obstacles to these privileges were “extremely troubling”.
He noted that he has seen governments ban suggestions they disagree with on numerous occasions and halt thoughts that “do never meet the standard as dictated by systems” on websites.
As the CEO of a system that receives needs from governments all over the world, Pavlovski continued,” These things are happening. I know this professionally.”
Pavlo Gonchar/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images
The Argentine government requested the removal of some authors from its app in 2024, the Rumble CEO told Congress. Pavlovski claimed that the information that the Portuguese government claimed did not violate Rumble’s terms and conditions but” shared views that were’unpopular’ at the time”
” Rumble made a very difficult decision not to comply with the government’s request. As with France, we chose to activate access for people in Brazil while we challenged the propriety of the Supreme Court’s needs”, Pavlovski said.
Rep. Chris Smith (R-NY), who formerly moderated a hearing in March where more than a few Brazilian politicians shared their experiences of oppression under Lula and de Moraes, presided over the proceedings.
In his opening remarks, Smith claimed that” Brazilians have been the victims of serious human rights violations by Portuguese officers on a large scale since soon 2022.”
He continued:
In Brazil, there are documented rights violations, including the political misuse of legal processes to imprison political opponents on false charges, journalists ‘ persecution of journalists, the banning of opposition journalists, thinly veiled censorship laws claiming to fight “disinformation,” and numerous other crimes against the rule of law and judicial wrongdoing.  ,
Smith noted that Brazil had gone so far as to punish Portuguese conservatives in America and “used Interpol red notices, social harassment, threats of legal actions and abduction, and, according, to one trustworthy target of international repression, has sought to use the FBI as a carrier or conduit to its intimidation”.
British journalist Michael Shellenberger, in his evidence, told Congress Brazil is” no more a liberal politics” but an “illiberal one where individuals fear speaking their minds for fear of punishment”.
In a series of social media posts, Shellenberger listed steps and needs from de Moraes to judge Brazilian politicians and former president Jair Bolsonaro on Twitter in early April. Shellenberger denounced in soon April that, as a result of the release, he has been accused by the Portuguese Attorney General’s office of having committed a “probable” violence.
” And for just exposing this truth, I find myself under criminal investigation by Brazil’s Federal Police and Attorney General”, Shellenberger told Congress.
Michael Shellenberger ( Tom Williams/CQ- Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images )
” I might be less concerned if Brazil were a little and useless state, but it’s not. Brazil , is the largest state in Latin America”, he continued. ” So, its influence is worldwide, and it risks being an indication for another nations”.
According to Shellenberger, data suggests that de Moraes ‘ regime’s rulings have directly affected elections by requiring separate journalists and politicians to be removed from all major social media platforms.
De Moraes does not just demand that political and media outlets censor particular information. He wants to see them permanently banned from all social media platforms, according to Shellenberger. He frequently uses underground sessions without the ability to appeal.
Paulo Figueiredo, a journalist from Brazil who now resides in exile in Florida, testified in his testimony about how the government and de Moraes had censored and deplatformed him as part of his “anti-fake information” campaign.
Beyond social groups, the right to free speech should be protected. I’m not here to support , conservatives but rather to protect the general value of freedom of expression for both , followers and critics of Lula da Silva, Bolsonaro, Moraes, or any open official or public services.
Figueiredo recalls that on December 30, 2022, an acquaintance called him to inform him that de Moraes had blocked his social media accounts in exchange for severe fines in case of non-compliance with the social media sites.
Figueiredo later learned that de Moraes had issued a decree enforcing the Brazilian Federal Police, imposed severe fines on him, and revoked his Brazilian passport.
” There is no justification, in any ideological spectrum, for measures of this type against , journalists in the so- called free world”, Figueiredo said. ” This is something commonplace in Russia, China, or Cuba, but it is unprecedented in Brazil”.
Fabio de Sa e Silva, professor of Brazilian Studies at the University of Oklahoma, offered the only favorable testimony to the government, arguing that the events of January 8 in Brazil — , when thousands stormed the premises of the nation’s Congress, Supreme Federal Tribunal, and the Planalto presidential palace — were the result of a “long process in which politicians, media influencers, and others, relying heavily on social media platforms, worked to discredit Brazilian electoral institutions” and Lula’s inauguration.
After storming the president’s official office in Brasilia, Brazil, on January 8, 2023, supporters of Brazil’s former president Jair Bolsonaro stand in front of a line of military police inside the Planalto presidential palace. ( AP Photo/Eraldo Peres, File )
Sa e Silva refuted Sa e Silva’s claim that de Moraes ‘ government is reshaping Brazil and that “democracy and the rule of law are crumbling.”
If there is a balance between free speech and other rights or the public interest, Sa e Silva said,” This balance may well lead to the removal of social media posts or the suspension of accounts if these actions violate legal standards.”
The professor of Brazilian studies also suggested that Congress’s concern over potential freedom of expression violations could threaten American diplomatic objectives.
Sa e Silva stated that those who are promoting the hearing online expressly hope that this will lead to the United States ‘ use of more aggressive measures against Brazil.
The Congress has the power to decide whether or not to take these measures, he continued, and they are also sovereign over the United States. ” But taking these measures, in my humble opinion, would not add to a productive relationship between the two countries and would be detrimental to U. S. leadership and the country’s national interest”.
Venezuelan author Christian K. Caruzo documents life under socialism. You can follow him on Twitter , here.
