Live tracker · updated September 19, 2026
A foreign regulator can threaten Americans with ruinous fines and imprisonment for speech on American soil — and, as of September 14, no American court can review that conduct on the merits. Congress can fix it. The GRANITE Act is the bill written to do exactly that.
On September 14, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed 4chan’s constitutional challenge to UK Ofcom’s enforcement of the UK Online Safety Act — not on the merits, but on foreign sovereign immunity. The court expressly declined to decide whether Ofcom violated Americans’ First Amendment rights, and pointed to Congress as the only body that can change the result. This section tracks the fix Congress is being asked to enact: the GRANITE Act (H.R.10174) and the HOMEFRONT Act (H.R.10309), plus the state-level shield laws already moving in Wyoming, New Hampshire, and West Virginia.
Featured bill Coalition supports H.R. 10174 · 119th Congress
The Guaranteeing Rights Against Novel International Tyranny and Extortion Act, introduced by Rep. Michael Rulli (R-OH) on August 27, 2026, is the first federal foreign-censorship shield bill in American history. It says something narrow and fundamentally American: foreign governments may govern their own jurisdictions, but American courts will not become the enforcement arm of foreign speech codes that violate the First Amendment.
A bill with zero cosponsors does not get a hearing. The single most useful thing a constituent can do this month is ask their Representative to put their name on H.R. 10174.
01 · The shield
Prohibits any American court from recognizing or enforcing a foreign judgment, fine, order, or demand that gives effect to a foreign censorship law. Ofcom’s £520,000 fine on a U.S. platform would have no legal force on American soil.
02 · The sword
Lets a U.S. person who is targeted or purportedly served with such a measure go to federal court and obtain a declaration that it is unenforceable — and amends the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act so the foreign government cannot dodge the case by invoking immunity. That is the exact door the D.C. court said was closed in 4chan v. Ofcom.
03 · The definitions
Defines a “foreign censorship law” as one that restricts or penalizes expression, targets speech by content, viewpoint, or speaker, or compels disclosure likely to chill it — and that would conflict with the First Amendment if recognized here. Administrative demands and regulatory threats are covered, not merely court orders.
Restore the First’s founder has publicly documented how his lawful U.S.-based speech entered a UK criminal proceeding to which he was neither a party nor a witness — and how a foreign court was later asked, without notice to him, to authorize his arrest though he had been accused of no crime. The coalition does not presume to say how H.R. 10174 would apply to any pending matter. Its relevance is the structural point: American speech now crosses borders instantly, and the First Amendment does not automatically travel with it.
GRANITE would, for the first time at the federal level, create a forum in which the targeted American can answer foreign pressure under American law. That is why the coalition added it to its supported bills on the day it was introduced, and why it sits at the top of this section.
BREAKING: Preston Byrne’s GRANITE Act Goes Federal — Sayer Ji, Aug 28, 2026 ↗Bill facts from Congress.gov (checked September 19, 2026) and the introduced text. Architecture summary follows Byrne’s analysis and Sayer Ji’s report. This is a discussion of introduced legislation, not legal advice; the coalition does not represent any party to 4chan v. Ofcom.
Explore the section
01 · The cases
The D.C. District Court dismissed the constitutional challenge on foreign sovereign immunity grounds yesterday. Byrne & Storm say the fines are “void in the United States,” but that Americans still have no forum to challenge foreign censorship threats on their own soil. The court identified Congress as the only fix.
Read the case tracker →02 · The bills
Federal: the GRANITE Act (H.R. 10174, Rulli, R-OH — the featured bill above) and the HOMEFRONT Act (H.R. 10309, Davidson, R-OH, with four bipartisan cosponsors). State: Wyoming HB 70 (passed the House 46–12 in Feb 2026), NH GRANITE Act, WV SB 923, ALEC model. Every bill’s architecture, sponsor, status, and coalition position.
See the bill matrix →03 · The explainer
The UK Online Safety Act 2023 gives Ofcom authority to fine platforms up to 10% of global revenue and to seek criminal penalties against executives. Ofcom now claims that authority extends to any platform accessible from the UK — including U.S.-based platforms operating on U.S. soil. Here is the mechanism, in plain English.
Read the explainer →04 · Take action
Both bills sit in House Judiciary. Neither has a hearing, and GRANITE has no cosponsors yet. One call to your Representative asking them to cosponsor H.R. 10174 — and a second on HOMEFRONT — is the highest-leverage action a constituent can take this month. Script, contact tool, and target list below.
Take action →What this section does not claim
Viewpoint-neutral. The First Amendment protects speech regardless of platform, publisher, or content. 4chan is neither the plaintiff most coalitions would pick nor the coalition’s partner. But the constitutional question the court left open — whether a foreign regulator may threaten Americans with fines and imprisonment on American soil for constitutionally protected speech — is upstream of any particular platform. If the answer is yes for one platform, it is yes for every American who speaks online.
Not against international cooperation. This section does not oppose treaty-based cooperation between the United States and its allies on lawful cross-border enforcement. It documents that Ofcom is asserting authority that no treaty grants, on American soil, over conduct that American law protects.
Not partisan. The federal bills are Republican-sponsored today. The Wyoming and New Hampshire state efforts have drawn bipartisan support. The underlying question — whether foreign regulators may reach American speech — is upstream of partisan alignment, and the coalition treats it as such.