Today
“So… come get me, I guess?”
In May, Australia’s Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion sent the American platform Gab a notice to produce documents, with a direction not to publish it. Under the Royal Commissions Act 1902, breaching that direction carries up to 12 months in prison. Byrne, as Gab’s lawyer, asserted his client’s rights, and Gab published the notice anyway (The Epoch Times).
This morning Byrne disclosed that the Commission had written back, called his conduct “disgraceful,” and sent a further direction addressed to him personally. His answer: it was not properly served, it has no binding force here, and it is unconstitutional. He forwarded it to several members of Congress.
Back in May, Australia threatened US website Gab with jail time for publishing a gag order wrt a censorship hearing.
— Preston Byrne (@prestonjbyrne) October 15, 2026
I responded by asserting my American client's rights.
Australia wrote back again, objecting and referring to my conduct as "disgraceful."
This was my reply.
Australia has every right to investigate antisemitism in Australia, and that inquiry was set up after a real terrorist attack. Whether its jail threats reach a lawyer sitting in the United States is a different question. The answer under the First Amendment is no. But as the law stands today, no American court can say so.
“The UK, EU, Australia, the Russian Federation… everyone offshore wants a piece of the First Amendment. This is one of hundreds of unconstitutional orders, from all over the planet, that have been transmitted into the United States in the last 18 months.”
Preston Byrne, October 15, 2026
The meta-view
Speech crosses borders instantly. The First Amendment doesn’t travel with it.
For two centuries, the First Amendment worked because the government it restrains was the only one that could reach you. The internet ended that. An American who posts from Ohio is now reachable by any regulator, in any country, whose citizens can load the page. Those regulators have noticed.
Ofcom sent orders and fines under the Online Safety Act to American sites, including 4chan. Byrne says that of 197 targets of the UK’s program, only four U.S. companies refused (Byrne).
In September, Roskomnadzor ordered a block of the Human Rights Foundation’s Tyranny Tracker. HRF refused; its Texas web host complied in under 24 hours (Byrne).
A Royal Commission threatened an American platform, and now its American lawyer, with prison for publishing a document.
A UK Law Commission paper floats product liability for open-source code supplied in the course of business. Byrne calls the rule “intolerable to American speech and the U.S. digital economy” (Byrne).
Most targets comply quietly, which is how most of this censorship stays invisible. The few who refuse, like 4chan, have tried the courts. On September 14 a federal court in Washington dismissed 4chan’s challenge to Ofcom. Ofcom, as an arm of the British state, has sovereign immunity. The court expressly did not decide whether Ofcom violated the First Amendment. It noted that Congress “could, if it wished, subject foreign governments and their instrumentalities to suit in the United States” (Byrne & Storm statement).
That sentence is the whole case for Byrne’s work. The gap is real, the courts have said only Congress can close it, and he has written the bill.
Who he is
One lawyer, a blueprint, and a year.
Preston Byrne is qualified to practice law in both the United States and the United Kingdom, and practices at his firm, Byrne & Storm, P.C. He is pro bono counsel to 4chan and to Lolcow, LLC, in their case against Ofcom. He knows exactly where British law ends and American sovereignty begins, and he has spent the past year making Congress learn it too.
- Oct 18, 2025Publishes the GRANITE Act as a model bill: a shield against enforcing foreign censorship, and a sword letting Americans sue (original proposal).
- Feb 23, 2026The Wyoming GRANITE Act passes the Wyoming House, 46–12. It runs out of time in the Senate and is set for reintroduction in 2027.
- Mar 27, 2026Co-authors the UK Free Speech Act 2026 model bill for the Adam Smith Institute, which would repeal the Online Safety Act.
- Jul 2026The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) adopts GRANITE’s defensive provisions as national model policy.
- Aug 27, 2026Rep. Michael Rulli (R-OH) introduces the federal GRANITE Act, H.R. 10174.
- Sep 8, 2026Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH) introduces the HOMEFRONT Act, H.R. 10309, built on the same design.
- Sep 23, 2026Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) introduces the Senate GRANITE Act, S. 5478 (Congress.gov).
The bills give Americans two things they do not have today. First, a categorical rule that American courts will not enforce foreign judgments, fines or orders that would violate the First Amendment. Second, a way into a federal courtroom to get a declaration that such an order is void, by lifting the immunity that stopped 4chan’s case.
Byrne frames this as the work of both parties, and he is right. When Rep. Jamie Raskin asked at a House Judiciary hearing why Republicans focused on Europe rather than Russia, Russia’s order against the Human Rights Foundation answered him. “This is not a partisan bill,” Byrne writes (Why Democrats Should Back the GRANITE Act).
Act now
Four things Congress can do this session.
The GRANITE bills are now in both chambers. As of today, neither the House nor the Senate version has a single cosponsor, and neither has had a hearing. A constituent call is the cheapest way to change that.
