As with all thing Musk I feel like there's a need to separate the artist from the art.

If this happened in a liberal democracy there is due process, you can't unilateraly freeze a corporation account, they would prevent whatever company is in violation of the law from doing business in the country and that's it. If the owner can be charged for wrongdoing you can do that too, and then finally if the owner has outstanding debts to the country you can liquidate their assets to recoup the amount.

This is not what happened here, a company is accused of breaking the law so another company which, beside partial ownership has nothing to do with it is getting its account frozen.

It's weird to see people cheering in the comments for this. If Jeff Bezos gets in hot water with the US government over Blue Origin, should they just freeze Amazon's account?

> 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.

This defeats the purpose of corporations.

> supreme court evaluates that X and Starlink have same ownership

They don’t though. And this is obvious even with the most basic web search. To me this looks like political intimidation and retribution by an out of control Supreme Court justice (Alexandre de Moraes). It’s a shame to see Brazil turn into a lawless banana republic.