Two American companies, Rumble Inc. and Trump Media & Technology Group Corp (TMTG), are taking a stand against what they call an “unprecedented” attack on First Amendment rights by a foreign government. Their lawsuit, filed in a Florida federal court, seeks to block the enforcement of censorship orders issued by Justice Alexandre de Moraes of Brazil’s Supreme Federal Tribunal.

However, a ruling last week by a federal judge in Florida has determined that Rumble and TMTG are not required to comply with these orders due to the way Moraes made his demands – avoiding diplomatic channels.

While this is a win for free speech, it raises larger questions about what would happen if a case like this were to proceed to trial.

The plaintiffs argue that Justice Moraes has overstepped his jurisdiction by demanding that Rumble and TMTG remove content, disclose private user data, and even appoint legal representatives to submit to Brazilian court authority. At the heart of the issue is whether a foreign judge can impose content restrictions on American companies operating on US soil—a question that has profound implications for the future of internet governance and free speech worldwide.

A Foreign Court’s Attempt to Control US Platforms

Rumble and TMTG’s legal filing paints a picture of judicial overreach by Justice Moraes, who has been at the center of a censorship campaign in Brazil. According to the lawsuit, his court has aggressively targeted political dissidents, shutting down accounts and issuing fines against platforms that fail to comply with his gag orders.

The immediate dispute revolves around a conservative Brazilian commentator living in the US, referred to in the lawsuit as Political Dissident A. This commentator, a vocal critic of the Brazilian Supreme Court, has been accused of “anti-democratic” speech, a charge that US courts would almost certainly dismiss as constitutionally protected under the First Amendment.

Despite the dissident’s legal residence in the United States, Justice Moraes has issued multiple orders requiring Rumble and TMTG to:

• Remove Political Dissident A’s content from their platforms entirely, without geographic limitations.
• Block the creation of new accounts for the dissident, effectively imposing a lifetime digital ban.
• Hand over private account and transaction data, which would be a direct violation of US data privacy laws.
• Suspend all financial transactions linked to the dissident.
• Appoint legal representatives in Brazil, effectively forcing Rumble to submit to foreign jurisdiction despite having no physical presence in the country.

To enforce compliance, Justice Moraes has threatened Rumble’s CEO with criminal prosecution and imposed a daily fine of $8,700, escalating indefinitely.

Why This Case Matters: A Free Speech Battleground

The case raises fundamental legal questions about free speech, sovereignty, and the role of US courts in rejecting foreign censorship. Rumble and TMTG’s legal team argue that Justice Moraes’s orders violate several core American legal principles:

1. The First Amendment Argument

The First Amendment prohibits government-imposed speech restrictions in the US, and the courts have consistently refused to enforce foreign defamation or censorship rulings that contradict these protections.

“This case presents an extraordinary affront to fundamental principles of free expression, sovereign authority, and the rule of law.”

Justice Moraes’s orders compel speech censorship—an action that would be considered unconstitutional under US law. If American courts refuse to allow domestic censorship laws to infringe on free speech, they are unlikely to enforce a foreign government’s restrictions either.

2. The Communications Decency Act (CDA) Argument

Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, US platforms like Rumble cannot be held liable for content posted by their users. The law explicitly shields platforms from liability for third-party speech—a legal protection that Justice Moraes’s orders attempt to bypass.

“Justice Moraes’s sweeping directives eviscerate fundamental First Amendment protections by compelling content-based removal of lawful speech on American soil.”

By demanding that Rumble proactively remove content and ban users, the Brazilian court is directly conflicting with US federal law, making the orders legally unenforceable.

3. The Lack of Jurisdiction Argument

Rumble and TMTG have no physical presence in Brazil—no offices, employees, or legal operations. Legal experts argue that a foreign court cannot compel a US company to abide by its laws without due process.

International legal agreements like the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) and the Hague Service Convention exist precisely for this reason: to ensure that foreign legal requests follow proper diplomatic and judicial channels.

Instead of using these legal mechanisms, Justice Moraes attempted to serve orders via email to Rumble’s Florida-based legal team, a move the plaintiffs claim is both legally invalid and indicative of judicial overreach.

4. International Comity and US Sovereignty

A core legal principle, international comity, holds that US courts should not enforce foreign rulings that violate American law or public policy. Courts have previously refused to enforce foreign defamation rulings on these grounds, and legal precedent suggests they will take a similar stance against Justice Moraes’s censorship orders.

“If this type of end-run around US law is allowed to stand, it will embolden other foreign officials to impose their censorship regimes on American companies without due process.”

What’s at Stake: A Global Precedent for Free Speech?

The plaintiffs argue that this case is about more than just Rumble or TMTG—it’s about the broader implications for free speech and the sovereignty of US law.

If a foreign government is allowed to dictate content moderation policies for American platforms, it sets a dangerous precedent:

• Other governments could demand similar censorship, pressuring US companies to comply with their restrictive speech laws.
• The global internet could become fragmented, as platforms struggle to navigate conflicting legal demands.
• American sovereignty would be weakened, as foreign courts gain unchecked authority over US businesses.

Vice President JD Vance recently spoke at the Munich Security Conference, reinforcing the US government’s stance:

“You cannot win a democratic mandate by censoring your opponents or putting them in jail.”

The First Amendment Argument Explained

Many are likely wondering whether the First Amendment applies to censorship demands from other countries. To support their claim, the plaintiffs cite several US court rulings that establish clear precedents against enforcing foreign censorship orders on US-based companies. Let’s examine some of the rulings and how its ruling apply to their legal battle.

1. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan 376 US 254 (1964)

This landmark Supreme Court case expanded First Amendment protections, ruling that public officials cannot silence criticism simply because it is unfavorable. The Court held that for a defamation claim to succeed, a plaintiff (particularly a government official) must prove that the speech was false and made with actual malice.

Justice Moraes has used Brazil’s vague “anti-democratic” speech laws to justify removing online content and even prosecuting users for criticism of the Brazilian government. The precedent in New York Times v. Sullivan suggests that even if speech is critical or controversial, government officials cannot demand its removal unless it meets a high legal standard. In this case, there is no evidence that the targeted speech meets the actual malice threshold, meaning that Rumble and TMTG should not be required to take it down.

2. Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme Et L’Antisemitisme (9th Cir. 2006)

This case involved a French court order requiring Yahoo to remove Nazi-related content from its platform. Yahoo challenged the order, arguing that it violated US free speech laws. The Ninth Circuit ruled that US courts are not required to enforce foreign censorship laws if they violate the First Amendment.

Justice Moraes’ orders are even broader than the French order against Yahoo because they demand that Rumble remove content not just in Brazil, but worldwide. According to the Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue precedent, a foreign court cannot dictate what content is available in the US, especially when that content is protected under US law. This ruling supports Rumble’s claim that Justice Moraes has no authority to impose Brazilian speech restrictions on an American company.

3. Bullfrog Films, Inc. v. Wick, 646 F. Supp. 492 (C.D. Cal. 1986)

In this case, the court ruled that US free speech protections extend to communications with foreign audiences. The government attempted to restrict films from being distributed abroad, but the court found that the First Amendment still applied even when the intended audience was outside the US.

Justice Moraes argues that because the censored content is viewed by Brazilians, US companies must comply with his censorship orders. However, the Bullfrog Films ruling makes it clear that US companies cannot be forced to follow foreign censorship laws simply because their content is available internationally. Since Rumble’s content is legally protected in the US, it cannot be compelled to remove it just because Brazil finds it offensive.

4. Cox v. McLean, 49 F. Supp. 3d 765 (D. Mont. 2014)

This case determined that when balancing hardships in a First Amendment case, courts must favor protecting free speech. The court found that the government could not justify restricting speech simply to avoid criticism or political fallout.

Rumble and TMTG argue that if they comply with Justice Moraes’ orders, they will lose user trust, face financial penalties, and violate US law. Meanwhile, the only harm to Justice Moraes is the continued existence of lawful speech he doesn’t like. Under the Cox v. McLean ruling, courts must prioritize protecting speech over foreign government concerns about dissent. This strengthens Rumble’s case for an injunction against the enforcement of the Brazilian orders.

5. Democratic Executive Committee of Florida v. Lee, 915 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2019)

The court ruled that the public interest is always served when constitutional rights are upheld. It emphasized that protecting free speech is a fundamental duty of the courts.

Rumble’s case has broad implications for free speech and digital rights. If the court upholds Justice Moraes’ orders, it would set a dangerous precedent allowing any foreign government to dictate online speech standards in the US. The Democratic Executive Committee v. Lee ruling supports the idea that it is in the public interest to strike down such foreign censorship.

6. Doe v. Harris, 772 F.3d 563 (9th Cir. 2014)

This case reaffirmed that government-imposed speech restrictions are unconstitutional unless they serve a compelling interest and are narrowly tailored.

Justice Moraes’ orders are incredibly broad—they don’t just remove specific content but demand a blanket ban on Political Dissident A. Under Doe v. Harris, such a sweeping restriction is unconstitutional because it is not narrowly tailored. A ruling in Rumble’s favor would affirm that foreign courts cannot impose broad speech restrictions that fail US constitutional standards.

***

Although Rumble and TMTG won this round, the battle over digital free speech is far from over. Should foreign governments refine their legal strategies and serve future censorship demands through proper channels, the need for strong First Amendment defenses will only grow.

For now, this ruling sends a clear message: US law, not foreign censorship, governs American platforms. The outcome of this case could shape the future of internet freedom, platform liability, and global governance of online expression. One thing is certain: the world is watching.

Subscribe to Reclaim the Net