The significance of the Granite Act

Preston Byrne, a Legal Fellow of the Adam Smith Institute, who does our legal representation in the US, is proposing the GRANITE Act (Guaranteeing Rights Against Novel International Tyranny & Extortion). It could significantly shift the landscape of free speech, especially on US-based tech platforms, if it becomes law.

The GRANITE Act aims to allow US persons, individuals or companies, to sue foreign governments or regulators that attempt to impose censorship or content-moderation rules on them. Under the bill, foreign censorship enforcement would lose sovereign immunity in US courts.

The bill sets up a ‘private right of action.’ if a foreign regulator attempts to force a US-based platform or user to moderate or remove content, the affected party can bring a civil lawsuit for damages (statutory damages, treble damages, or a share of revenue) and seek injunctive relief.

It also prohibits state co-operation, in states that adopt it, with foreign censorship enforcement, meaning local authorities couldn’t help foreign regulators apply their laws to US entities.

Its purpose it to shield US platforms from foreign speech laws. If passed at federal, or widely adopted at state level, it could protect US-based tech companies from legal pressure by foreign governments seeking to force them to comply with the foreign country’s content or ‘online safety’ laws. That means platforms might feel more confident hosting speech that would be legal in the US, even if disallowed overseas.

It would reduce external censorship pressure. Platforms or users would have a real deterrent against removal requests coming from abroad, because they’d face liability and potentially huge damages if they comply. That could limit over-broad moderation, especially on controversial or politically sensitive content that foreign regimes try to suppress.

 The aim is to protect user rights under US free speech norms. The Act reinforces the principle that US free-speech protections under the First Amendment should govern what happens on US servers, regardless of foreign laws. That may preserve a more permissive speech environment on US-hosted platforms.

If the GRANITE Act becomes law, it might make US-based platforms less vulnerable to foreign attempts to apply censorship standards, which many see as a win for free expression globally, or at least for Americans. The protections are primarily for US-based entities or users, so content hosted outside the US or by non-US companies might not benefit.

 The GRANITE Act draws inspiration from prior US legislation like the SPEECH Act (2010), which was designed to prevent foreign libel judgments from being enforced in US courts, a narrower but related protection for free speech. The GRANITE Act goes beyond libel, targeting foreign censorship regimes broadly, including hate-speech, misinformation, ‘online safety,’ and other content-moderation rules.

The timing matters. With increasing pressure from regulators abroad (for example under the Online Safety Act in the UK, proponents of GRANITE see it as a vital counterbalance to preserve what they consider core free-speech values for U.S. tech platforms.

It doesn’t necessarily require platforms to allow all speech; it simply limits the ability of foreign governments to force takedowns under foreign laws. Moderation could still happen under US law, platform policy, or other pressures. It doesn’t override domestic US laws. Speech that is illegal under US law, such as criminal threats or defamation, would still be subject to removal or liability.

It doesn’t guarantee that platforms will side with users. Even if legally protected, platforms may weigh operational or reputational risk and decide to moderate anyway.

If enacted, the GRANITE Act would bolster free speech on US-based platforms by making it harder for foreign governments to impose their censorship rules on Americans. For platforms, users and content creators who publish or distribute speech that is legal in the US but disallowed elsewhere, it could offer stronger protection.

If passed, it will hugely discomfort OFCOM and the EU, who seem to think they can override US free speech rights under the first Amendment. Maybe it’s time they were brought to heel?

Madsen Pirie