The GRANITE Act: How Congress Can Strike Back Against Foreign Censors

Authored by Preston Byrne,

Please find below the draft text of the GRANITE Act, a bill I have offered to New Hampshire legislators for consideration for enactment in that state. It could serve as a template for a U.S. fightback against global censorship, if adapted for federal use.

It doesn’t really require a ton of explanation.

The gist is simple: the only real defense a foreign censor has from injunctive relief in a U.S. court, as we saw with Ofcom’s recent fine letter to 4chan and the strategy employed by Trump Media and Technology Group’s attorneys in their case against Alexandre de Moraes in the Middle District of Florida, is sovereign immunity.

Foreign countries can bully the shit out of American citizens and companies because they know that U.S. law potentially protects them from consequences for doing so.

We should take that immunity away from them. Such a move would have teeth because these foreign countries’ economies would break down if they didn’t have access to the U.S. banking system. The UK, for example, has £47 billion custodied in North American banks in order to support its currency.

The GRANITE Act makes foreign censorship inbound to the U.S. a very simple cost/benefit exercise for these countries: you can try to censor an American citizen or corporation, but if you do, they can sue you, and you, Mr. Foreign Censor, are not judgment proof because your country needs access to the U.S. financial system to survive.

This also means that trial lawyers will be responsible for protecting Americans’ rights rather than the State Department/the Executive Branch. This will mean that instead of having to deal with nuisance demands from foreign bureaucrats, President Trump can move on to other, more important matters he has proven so very adept at, like bringing the peoples and nations of the world together in peace and harmony, and blame Congress and aggressive American trial lawyers if any foreigner complains about American rules.

I add: the statutory damages are set at a minimum of $10 million because the UK is threatening Americans with fines of $25 million or 10% of global turnover, whichever is greater. That is the scale of the abuse that American citizens currently have to tolerate from these foreign countries.

I have a feeling, if we create consequences for foreign censorship, inbound foreign censorship will stop.

So, I ask Congress: adapt this for federal use. Enact it. If you do this, you will end the foreign censorship problem in a day.

Model Bill – the GRANITE Act

Section 1. Short Title

This Act may be cited as the Guaranteeing Rights Against Novel International Tyranny & Extortion Act (the “GRANITE Act” or the “Act”).

Section 2. Legislative Purpose

The purpose of this Act is to safeguard the constitutional rights of New Hampshire residents against the extraterritorial application of foreign Internet censorship laws that would restrict speech or compel disclosure of information in violation of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire.

Section 3. Jurisdiction and Venue

1. The courts of this state shall have subject-matter jurisdiction over any action brought by a resident or domiciliary of New Hampshire, a New Hampshire corporation, or a person within the State of New Hampshire alleging that a foreign government, or any officer, employee, or instrumentality thereof, has:
   • (a) issued or attempted to enforce any law, judgment, subpoena, or order purporting to regulate speech or conduct protected by the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, in each case occurring wholly within the United States; or
   • (b) sought to compel a New Hampshire resident or entity to comply with such foreign law, judgment, subpoena, or order purporting to regulate speech or conduct protected by the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire.
2. Personal jurisdiction shall be deemed established whenever the foreign actor directs or transmits any demand, notice, threat, or other communication into the state or to a resident of this state, whether by electronic means or otherwise.

Section 4. Cause of Action and Remedies

1. Any resident or domiciliary of New Hampshire who has been, or any person who is physically present in New Hampshire at the time they were, or any New Hampshire corporation who has been victimized by, conduct described in Section 3 may bring a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction against any person or entity responsible for that conduct or any foreign state authorizing that conduct. Such persons or entities responsible for the conduct described in Section 3 shall be jointly and severally liable for that conduct.
2. Upon proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the foreign government or its instrumentality acted to chill, restrict, or penalize constitutionally protected expression or association, or otherwise infringe on any right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, the plaintiff shall be entitled to:
   • (a) the greater of:
     1. Treble actual damages; or
     2. statutory damages of not less than $10,000,000 (ten million U.S. dollars) or the equivalent dollar amount of the threatened fine on the date on which the fine was threatened, whichever is greater;

(b) Reasonable attorney’s fees and costs; and

(c) Injunctive and declaratory relief as necessary to prevent further violations of the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

Section 5. Waiver of Sovereign Immunity

1. A foreign state, foreign agency, or foreign instrumentality, or any person employed by such foreign state, foreign agency, or foreign instrumentality, that engages in conduct described in Section 3 shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of this state.
2. The doctrine of sovereign immunity shall be deemed waived for any act undertaken to enforce or threaten enforcement of a foreign law that is contrary to the public policy or constitutional guarantees of the United States or the State of New Hampshire.

Section 6. Non-Recognition of Foreign Judgments

No court of this state shall recognize, enforce, or give any effect to a foreign judgment, order, or administrative action that infringes rights protected by the United States or New Hampshire Constitutions.

Section 7. Construction

This Act shall be liberally construed to provide maximum protection for New Hampshire residents against the extraterritorial enforcement of foreign censorship laws. Nothing in this Act shall limit any other cause of action or remedy available under federal or state law.

*  *  *

Update 1: Since the initial draft of this blog post, it has been converted into an actual bill and been filed in the State of Wyoming. New Hampshire to follow soon.

Update 2: The United States Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy, Sarah Rogers, has told GB News that UK censorship of Americans has crossed a “red line” and that a version of the GRANITE Act, presumably derived from the Wyoming bill, is on the verge of introduction in the U.S. House of Representatives. I can also personally confirm a derivative of the Wyoming GRANITE Act continues to move forward in New Hampshire and filing is expected in weeks.