Action was against X, and then Musk shut down X's Brazilian office and left outstanding debts. The supreme court evaluates that X and Starlink have same ownership and therefore Starlink (which still has local representation) is being held responsible for X's delinquent debts.
I am not a lawyer so can't comment on legality of this but it's obvious that X's stance on free speech is incompatible with Brazil's legislation on hate speech. My opinion is that X never had any intention to observe Brazilian law, and ran out of options to delay and deflect.
X decided to challenge, Moraes raised the fine to 20k USD daily, they continued defying the order, until they closed the company thinking this is a legal way to circumvent the debt they owe to the state.
Moraes found out that there are links between Starlink and X (Musk), so he decided to go after Starlink instead, blocking their bank accounts until X pays what they owe to the Brazilian state.
Musk doesn’t own a majority of Starlink or SpaceX. (SpaceX owns Starlink. SpaceX is controlled by Musk. But he owns less than 50% of the shares.)
Is this legal in the US?
If company A owns B and C; and C does something bad, can A or B be fined?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil
> Is this legal in the US?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil#Un...
Some more discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41392962
source: Brazilian activist report
I’m sure if the Feds raid gold mining they’ll find some copper wires and other infrastructure.
Starlink does nothing special to enable mining. Thousands of people and industries use it. It’s just infrastructure.
I’m not arguing for replacements. I’m arguing that it’s stupid to blame infrastructure for the sins of the people using it.
That’s like blaming vegetables because Hitler was a vegetarian.
