Citizens generally learn what the law prevents not by reading it themselves and guessing but by looking at what courts have ruled and summaries thereof. That's how I know that lethal self-defense is legal even though many of the laws against violence don't even mention it (because it's an interpretational principle that judges read in a necessity defense).

And if the letter merely critisized the state of Brazilian free speech laws fine and if it said that those laws are so bad it's better if X pulls out of Brazil I'd be willing to listen. But it defends Musk ignoring the apparently procedurally valid demands of a Brazilian court of law **as a matter of Brazilian law**.

And unless one has a good argument that the courts in a country are fundamentally illegitimate (eg Russia) we think one usually that the correct response to a valid court order is to comply unless it is so clearly beyond the normal functioning of those institutions as to be fundamentally illegitimate. That's why we expect both political parties in the us to obey SCOTUS deciscions they deeply disagree with.