You may remember the kerfuffle X got into with Brazil last summer. For a few months, the social media platform was banned from doing business in the country. At the time, the disingenuous right claimed that Brazil’s actions were an affront to free speech—that people’s rights were being trampled on and that Brazil was not a true democracy.

As with so many arguments from Trump and his acolytes, this could not be further from the truth. In fact, what Brazil did was a protection of free speech. Let me go a step further: the current laws in the United States actually contradict the very concept of free speech. Let me explain.

The Brazilian constitution enshrines and celebrates free speech, particularly after decades of dictatorship. The framers of their constitution wanted to ensure that dissent was protected. However, as in the United States, the right to free speech is not absolute. Brazil specifically excludes hate speech, racism, discrimination, and the deliberate spread of fake news. Their laws also prescribe penalties for slander, defamation, and incitement to crime. When Twitter (now X) refused to comply with these regulations, it was shut down until it agreed to pay a large fine and establish in-country accountability for its actions.

The U.S. Constitution enshrines free speech in the First Amendment, but, as in Brazil, this right is not absolute. You cannot yell “fire” in a crowded theater. You cannot commit slander or libel. You cannot incite a riot. Civil and criminal laws ensure that those who cross the line are held accountable, providing the state and private citizens with remedies for protection. Media companies that violate these protections can be sued—just ask Fox News about their $787 million settlement with Dominion Voting Systems.

These U.S. laws that protect against slander and libel safeguard free speech by ensuring that what is said is truthful and decent, preventing individuals and companies from spreading spurious and hateful lies that cause harm—just as the Brazilian constitution does with its carve-outs.

Unfortunately for those of us in the U.S., we have Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This provision states that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” In practice, this means that social media companies cannot be sued in the same way traditional publishers can, even if they disseminate libelous content. Ironically, this section of the law undermines decency and contradicts the ideals of free speech.

There is an old Jewish parable that illustrates why this is so dangerous.

A troubled congregant once approached their rabbi and confessed to having spoken ill of someone in their community, spreading harmful rumors and gossip. They now deeply regretted their actions and asked how they could make amends.

The rabbi instructed them to take a feather pillow to the top of a hill, cut it open, and release the feathers into the wind. Confused but eager to make amends, the parishioner followed the rabbi’s instructions and watched as the wind carried the feathers far and wide.

When they returned, feeling relieved, the rabbi gave them a second instruction: “Now, go and collect every single feather.”

The parishioner was distraught. “But that’s impossible! The wind has carried them all away!”

“Exactly,” said the rabbi. “Just as it is impossible to gather every feather, it is impossible to take back every word of gossip. Once spoken, words spread beyond our control, affecting people in ways we may never see.”

There is no metaphorical wind that spreads misinformation faster than social media platforms. There is no greater threat to free speech than the immunity that Section 230 provides them. In an era of AI, deepfakes, and malicious actors who manipulate the system for their own gain, it is time for social media companies to follow the same laws that govern every other media company and individual in the country.

One final note: Jair Bolsonaro, the former president of Brazil—often referred to as the Trump of the Tropics—has been banned from holding office because Brazil’s courts found that he convened a meeting with foreign ambassadors in which he made unfounded claims about the integrity of Brazil’s electronic voting system.

Just imagine how much better off we would be if we had the same laws as Brazil.