A Republican congressman and ally of President Trump, Michael Rulli, has filed a bill that would prevent the British internet censor Ofcom from enforcing Orwellian online safety rules on websites based in the US. This landmark bill would also prevent US
courts from recognising or enforcing foreign fines relating to online speech. Since Donald Trump returned to the presidency, he and his administration have been fiercely critical of the UK Government's approach to free speech, particularly online,
repeatedly citing the Online Safety Act. These concerns are also levelled at the EU for its Digital Services Act. In the eyes of the US administration, these censorious legislative regimes have infringed not only on the free speech of British and
European citizens, but also on the First Amendment rights of US citizens, while unfairly targeting American businesses.
The bill introduced by Congressman Rulli is called the Granite Act (Guaranteeing Rights Against Novel International Tyranny and
Extortion). Speaking to The Times, Rulli said: F
Foreign bureaucrats do not get to decide what Americans can say. My bill makes 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 our courts.
Ofcom has repeatedly gone after US websites for alleged breaches of the Online Safety Act, notably 4chan and Kiwi Farms. In March, Ofcom fined 4chan a staggering
£520,000 after finding that it had failed to comply with its duties under the Act. Both 4chan and Kiwi Farms have launched legal action in the US seeking an injunction against Ofcom. The regulator responded by asking for the case to be dismissed,
arguing that, as a foreign governmental body, it was protected,claiming sovereign immunity, from being sued under US law. Rulli's bill would remove that protection.
It is not expected that this particular version of the bill will make it onto the
statute book, but with support from a number of key Trump officials, the House Judiciary Committee, and the backing of both the White House and State Department, similar proposals could be taken forward.
The wording of the bill reads:
LIMITATION ON ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN CENSORSHIP JUDGMENTS.
(a) LIMITATION ON ENFORCEMENT
Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal or State law, a domestic court shall not recognize
or enforce a foreign judgment, or a fine, order, or demand issued by a foreign court or a foreign state, enforcing a foreign censorship law.
(b) RIGHT OF ACTION
A United States person against whom a foreign
judgment described in subsection (a) is entered, or upon whom a judgment, fine, order, or demand described in subsection (a) is served or purportedly served, may bring an action in an appropriate district court of the United States seeking declaratory
relief that such judgment, fine, order, or demand is unenforceable under subsection (a)
Update: Another bill opposing foreign censorship from the likes of Ofcom
9th September 2026.See
article from prestonbyrne.com by Preston Byrne
US Representative Warren Davidson has introduced the HOMEFRONT Act , the Halting Overseas Mandates from Extraterritorially Reaching Onto National Territory Act.
The HOMEFRONT Act is a GRANITE-style foreign censorship shield
bill, the seventh such GRANITE-architecture bill or model policy to be advanced by American legislators in the last seven months, and the third such bill to be advanced in the last ten days. I anticipate there will be even more GRANITE-style bills, both
state and federal, in the next several months.
In terms of where HOMEFRONT fits into the new, but rapidly-growing, ten-month-old American tradition of foreign censorship shield bills, many of Rep. Davidsons additional provisions
hew closely to the original Wyoming GRANITE Act proposal introduced by Rep. Daniel Singh in that state earlier this year. There are also some novel provisions which have never been seen in the foreign censorship shield discourse before today.
Between the two bills, Rep. Davidsons bill is the more detailed and the more aggressive. Its private cause of action -- its sword -- includes damages language and would, if enacted, have greater deterrent effect than a
declaration-only bill. Much of what Rullis bill implies is, in Davidsons proposal, made express.
Eeither bill is a dramatic improvement over the present state of affairs and, as a lawyer working in the area of foreign censorship
defense, on the ground, either bill, if enacted, would be most useful to that work. Any legislator concerned about the fact that Americans are being threatened by foreign governments over our constitutionally protected expression could, quite safely,
vote for either one.
