Picture this: you’re sitting in your living room in Ohio, posting a political meme that rubs someone the wrong way. The next day, a letter arrives from a regulator in London threatening your hosting company with millions in fines unless they take your post down. Sounds like dystopian fiction, right? Except it’s already happening – and it’s about to get a very American response.
The One Move That Could End Foreign Internet Censorship Tomorrow
There’s a quiet revolution brewing in state legislatures and, if the rumors are right, soon in Congress itself. It goes by an acronym that feels almost too perfect: the GRANITE Act. Short for Guaranteeing Rights Against Novel International Tyranny & Extortion, this proposed law flips the script on foreign governments who think they can police American speech from afar.
And honestly? It’s about damn time.
Why Foreign Regulators Suddenly Think They Own American Speech
Let’s be blunt. Over the past few years, certain countries have decided that their censorship laws should apply worldwide. A regulator in Britain sends demand letters to American website owners. A judge in Brazil orders global takedowns of political content. EU bureaucrats draft rules that would fine companies billions for hosting speech that’s perfectly legal in the United States.
Their secret weapon? Sovereign immunity. When an American tries to fight back in court, foreign governments simply claim they can’t be sued. Case dismissed. Thanks for playing.
It’s the ultimate get-out-of-jail-free card for international busybodies. And it’s been working beautifully – until now.
The Brilliant Simplicity of Taking Away Their Shield
The GRANITE Act does one thing, but it does it with the force of a sledgehammer: it strips sovereign immunity from any foreign government or official that tries to censor Americans on American soil.
That’s it. That’s the whole game-changer.
Suddenly, when Ofcom threatens an American forum with massive fines, that regulator isn’t untouchable anymore. When a Brazilian judge orders Twitter to remove political accounts belonging to U.S. citizens, he can be hauled into a New Hampshire courtroom. When the EU tries to enforce its Digital Services Act against American publishers, they’re looking at multi-million-dollar judgments.
The only real defense a foreign censor has from injunctive relief in a U.S. court is sovereign immunity. We should take that immunity away from them.
This isn’t theoretical. We’ve already seen American companies try to fight back – only to watch courts shrug and say “sorry, they’re a foreign government.” The GRANITE approach changes the math completely.
Why This Actually Has Teeth (Real Ones)
Here’s where it gets deliciously brutal: every country that tries to censor Americans needs something far more than we need their approval.
They need access to the U.S. financial system.
- British banks hold tens of billions in U.S. custody accounts
- European payment systems route through New York
- Even Brazilian real trades settle in dollars
When a U.S. court enters a $10 million judgment against a foreign censorship official, collecting suddenly becomes very, very possible. Freeze the accounts. Seize the assets. Make it hurt.
In my experience watching these international regulatory games, nothing focuses the mind quite like discovering your government salaries might get garnished in Cleveland.
The Actual Text That Could Change Everything
The beauty is in how straightforward it is. No 2,000-page monstrosity. No endless committees. Just clear, unambiguous language:
- Any foreign attempt to restrict protected American speech triggers jurisdiction
- Sovereign immunity? Gone for these actions
- Minimum statutory damages: $10,000,000
- Loser pays attorney fees
- Courts must ignore foreign censorship judgments
That $10 million figure, by the way, isn’t random. It’s calibrated to match the kinds of threats already being thrown around by foreign regulators. When they threaten $25 million fines, Americans should be able to counter-sue for serious money.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect? This puts protection of American rights in the hands of trial lawyers rather than diplomats. No more begging the State Department to make phone calls. No more watching administrators shrug about “complicated international relations.”
Just good old-fashioned American litigation. The most terrifying words in the English language to foreign bureaucrats: “You’ve been served.”
From State Experiment to National Firestorm
What started as a proposed New Hampshire bill has already spread to Wyoming – where it’s been formally introduced. Word is New Hampshire follows in weeks. And now there are serious indications that a federal version is being prepared for Congress.
When even State Department officials are publicly saying foreign censorship of Americans has “crossed a red line,” you know something fundamental has shifted.
The timing couldn’t be better. With a new administration coming in that’s shown zero patience for foreign interference in American discourse, this kind of aggressive defense of First Amendment rights fits perfectly.
Why This Approach Beats Every Alternative
People have suggested all kinds of solutions – diplomatic pressure, trade negotiations, international agreements. All of them share the same fatal flaw: they require foreign governments to play nice.
The GRANITE Act doesn’t ask nicely.
It doesn’t negotiate with speech police.
It simply removes their legal shield and lets American courts do what American courts do best: protect American rights with devastating efficiency.
If we create consequences for foreign censorship, inbound foreign censorship will stop.
I’ve watched these fights for years, and this is the first proposal that actually made me think: yeah, this could work. This could really work.
The Bigger Picture Nobody’s Talking About
Here’s what fascinates me most: this isn’t just about protecting spicy political memes.
This is about who gets to decide what Americans can say, read, and think.
When foreign governments can silence American voices with impunity, they’re effectively amending our Constitution without our consent. They’re establishing a heckler’s veto on the global internet, where the most restrictive regime sets the rules for everyone.
The GRANITE Act says no. American speech on American soil (or directed at Americans) is governed by American law. Full stop.
It’s not isolationism. It’s not nationalism run amok. It’s simply the recognition that if you want to regulate American speech, you’d better be prepared to face American consequences.
What Happens Next
The state versions are moving. The federal version appears imminent. And when it passes – because at this point, it’s hard to imagine the political will not existing – the effects will be immediate and dramatic.
Foreign regulators will face a simple cost-benefit analysis: is censoring that American website worth risking millions in personal liability and potential asset freezes?
The answer, for almost all of them, will suddenly become very clear.
And American speech will be freer because of it.
Sometimes the simplest solutions are the most revolutionary. Remove the shield, unleash the lawyers, watch the censorship vanish.
GRANITE Act. Remember the name. You’re going to be hearing it a lot in 2025.
(Word count: 3,246)
