.
The Wyoming GRANITE Act, formally titled the "Guaranteeing Rights Against Novel International Tyranny & Extortion Act," is a proposed state law filed by Representative Daniel Singh in November 2025, marking the first foreign censorship shield bill introduced in the United States.
The act aims to protect Wyoming residents, companies, and servers from foreign censorship attempts by foreign governments, such as the United Kingdom’s Ofcom, which has sought to enforce its Online Safety Act on American platforms like 4chan and Kiwi Farms.
The bill explicitly prohibits Wyoming state entities from cooperating with foreign censorship orders, preventing local officials from being compelled to enforce foreign regulatory actions.
A central feature of the GRANITE Act is its creation of a private right of action, allowing American citizens and entities to sue foreign governments or their agents in U.S. courts for attempting to censor protected speech within the United States.
This directly challenges the doctrine of sovereign immunity, which foreign governments like the UK have invoked to avoid liability in U.S. courts.
The act proposes that foreign states, their agencies, and responsible officials can be held jointly and severally liable for damages.
The damages provision is designed to match the scale of foreign threats. The law establishes a minimum penalty of $10 million per violation, which is intended to counteract the substantial fines foreign regulators threaten - such as the UK’s potential 10% of global revenue fines.
The damages are calculated as the greater of treble actual damages, $10 million (adjusted for inflation), or three times the threatened fine, creating a significant financial deterrent.
For example, a threat of a $16.4 billion fine from the UK could result in a $49.2 billion damages claim.
The act also enables U.S. courts to seize foreign sovereign assets located in American banks to satisfy judgements, such as the UK’s £47 billion in U.S. custody, thereby making enforcement feasible.
This mechanism shifts the burden of enforcing free speech protections from federal agencies to American citizens and trial lawyers, empowering them to act as a check on foreign overreach.
Proponents, including attorney Preston Byrne, argue that such laws could represent a major victory for global free speech by dismantling the "censorship-industrial apparatus" that relies on foreign coercive power.
The bill is part of a broader movement, with similar proposals expected in other states and potentially at the federal level, aiming to counteract the extraterritorial application of foreign censorship laws.
While the act is still in early legislative stages and must pass through committees and floor votes before becoming law, its filing marks a significant step in challenging foreign attempts to censor American speech.
.
I'm all for it personally, but there will be countermeasures put in place until this shift in elected representation finds its footing.
A brief rundown for those who prefer to read:
The act aims to protect Wyoming residents, companies, and servers from foreign censorship attempts by foreign governments, such as the United Kingdom’s Ofcom, which has sought to enforce its Online Safety Act on American platforms like 4chan and Kiwi Farms.
The bill explicitly prohibits Wyoming state entities from cooperating with foreign censorship orders, preventing local officials from being compelled to enforce foreign regulatory actions.
A central feature of the GRANITE Act is its creation of a private right of action, allowing American citizens and entities to sue foreign governments or their agents in U.S. courts for attempting to censor protected speech within the United States.
This directly challenges the doctrine of sovereign immunity, which foreign governments like the UK have invoked to avoid liability in U.S. courts.
The act proposes that foreign states, their agencies, and responsible officials can be held jointly and severally liable for damages.
The damages provision is designed to match the scale of foreign threats. The law establishes a minimum penalty of $10 million per violation, which is intended to counteract the substantial fines foreign regulators threaten - such as the UK’s potential 10% of global revenue fines.
The damages are calculated as the greater of treble actual damages, $10 million (adjusted for inflation), or three times the threatened fine, creating a significant financial deterrent.
For example, a threat of a $16.4 billion fine from the UK could result in a $49.2 billion damages claim.
The act also enables U.S. courts to seize foreign sovereign assets located in American banks to satisfy judgements, such as the UK’s £47 billion in U.S. custody, thereby making enforcement feasible.
This mechanism shifts the burden of enforcing free speech protections from federal agencies to American citizens and trial lawyers, empowering them to act as a check on foreign overreach.
Proponents, including attorney Preston Byrne, argue that such laws could represent a major victory for global free speech by dismantling the "censorship-industrial apparatus" that relies on foreign coercive power.
The bill is part of a broader movement, with similar proposals expected in other states and potentially at the federal level, aiming to counteract the extraterritorial application of foreign censorship laws.
While the act is still in early legislative stages and must pass through committees and floor votes before becoming law, its filing marks a significant step in challenging foreign attempts to censor American speech.
I'm all for it personally, but there will be countermeasures put in place until this shift in elected representation finds its footing.