There's now a US Senate bill titled, "Guaranteeing Rights Against Novel International Tyranny and Extortion Act."
That's the GRANITE Act. The bill, which has a companion in the House, was introduced by Senator Mike Lee, a Republican from Utah, on September 23. It's four pages long.
If it becomes law, it would add a new section 4106 to title 28 of the US Code, and this would stop US courts from recognizing or enforcing "a foreign judgment, or a fine, order, or demand issued by a foreign court or a foreign state, enforcing a foreign censorship law."
What is a "foreign censorship law?" According to the bill, it is any law of a foreign state that "has the primary purpose or substantial effect of restricting or penalizing expression, expressive conduct, or expressive association," or that "targets expression, expressive conduct, or expressive association based on its content, viewpoint, or speaker identity," or that "compels disclosure that would reasonably chill that expression" – and that "would conflict with the protections of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States if recognized in the United States."
Here's what the bill does: it gives US persons the right to sue if they are targeted by such a foreign law, and seek "declaratory relief" – i.e., a court declaration that the judgment or fine is unenforceable.
The House version was introduced by Rep. Michael Rulli, who at the time said the goal was to stop "foreign bureaucrats" from deciding what Americans can and cannot say, and make it clear that if a foreign government tries to punish an American for speech protected by the First Amendment, that judgment is "dead on arrival" in US courts.
Rulli also said at the time, "The Constitution protects our right to speak freely. It does not bend to Brussels or London."
As for the background to the legislative efforts, it's Ofcom, the UK's speech regulator, that is credited with prompting this flurry of activity. Ofcom sent at least 197 notices to US companies between February 2025 and April 2026, according to Preston Byrne, who represents 4chan and helped draft the GRANITE proposals, and one of those companies, 4chan, decided to sue the regulator in a US federal court, citing the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments.
When Ofcom tried to get the case dismissed, it essentially argued that its laws apply in the US, but that US courts have no jurisdiction over Ofcom. The bill that is now in the Senate aims to fix this by amending the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, specifically section 1605(a), to remove immunity in cases involving censorship.
That's the difference between a judgment and a notice. A judgment is the end of the road, while a notice is the beginning of the end, as companies are aware that ignoring it could eventually lead to a judgment.
Reclaim The Net reported about the House bill when it was introduced last month, noting that it was declaratory relief that US persons would be able to seek, but not damages.
This is not the only "GRANITE Act" around – New Hampshire has its own, as does Wyoming. There's also the HOMEFRONT Act, H.R. 10309, sponsored by Rep. Warren Davidson. And Under Secretary of State Sarah Rogers told the British that Ofcom's extraterritorial ambitions were "a deal-breaker," "a non-starter," and "a red line."
It's the notices, not court judgments, that are the actual tools of censorship here. A company that receives one weighs the cost of fighting it, against the cost of simply complying, and deleting the content. More often than not, the post loses.
