[ben_w]

Is it unreasonable when the executive and shareholder in question is in their personal capacity flagrantly opposed to compliance and also professionally trying to avoid compliance with a previous court ruling by removing more pertinent assets? And the satellite network itself is a delivery mechanism if/when X gets blocked in Brazil, so there's reason to preemptively seize that given Musk's public statements on this topic.

(In case it isn't obvious: I'm not a lawyer, I've not really considered this in any depth beyond some other news sources besides this tweet, and this is a totally noob question that may have an answer in literally lawschool 101).

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/brazil-supreme-court-just...

[haneefmubarak]

I can't answer to legality since IANAL and systems vary anyways, but on a moral basis, yes, it is absolutely nonetheless unreasonable until SpaceX / Starlink actually commit an actionable offense of their own or otherwise demonstrate the intent to do so. It's outstandingly unreasonable and offensive to seize assets of such an entity without charging that specific entity with an offense; especially so when your basis is literally "I want to compel an unrelated venture with common beneficial ownership to unilaterally censor my political opponents worldwide".

AFAICT, Starlink complies with local regulations in the countries it operates in, including blocking access to specific IP prefixes and/or declining to default resolve DNS entries for specific domains.

[xinayder]

Musk said you can use Starlink to circumvent the block if X gets blocked in Brazil.

IANAL but I'm pretty sure this is legal ground enough (plus all the shit Musk spits on Twitter, attacking Brazil and its institutions, a criminal offense in Brazil, from his ivory tower in Texas) to solicit a block of Starlink Holdings assets.

There are plenty of reasons out there to justify these actions and you can be sure Moraes will find them.

EDIT: Musk said this in April during Twitter Files Brazil.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Musk said you can use Starlink to circumvent the block if X gets blocked in Brazil

Source? That's super material (if true).

[xinayder]

Unfortunately he deleted the tweet and I can't find it anywhere, but it was mentioned during the whole "Twitter Files Brazil" saga where Musk explicitly said "Starlink userd won't be affected if X gets blocked".

[voxic11]

Ok so undocumented hearsay?

[hkpack]

Musk is well known to tweet inflammatory, controversial, or fake stuff and delete the tweet after few days.

I personally observe some of his viral tweet to be deleted later multiple times.

At some point I had a burst of motivation to start writing a bot to keep track of all the stuff he deleted for people like you to observe, but was quickly disgusted to waste any time to be on top of the argument with some stranger.

So yeah, without google or other search engine's ability to index the whole twitter, everything is written there is hearsay I guess.

[lobocinza]

Yes it is unreasonable. It's only reasonable from an authoritarian perspective.

[ben_w]

My perspective is not authoritarian, so no.

The judge doing this may be, or may not be, as authoritianism is neither necessary nor sufficient as a cause nor this result as a consequence.

[lobocinza]

This isn't the perspective of Brazilian jurists.

https://www.estadao.com.br/politica/bloqueio-de-contas-da-st...