Wyoming has taken a historic step to insulate American speech from foreign interference with the introduction of the Wyoming Guaranteeing Rights Against Novel International Tyranny and Extortion (GRANITE) Act, House Bill 0070, which would be the first US law designed to create a private right of action against foreign censorship enforcement.

Representative Daniel Singh introduced the bill, declaring that “foreign governments have decided they can threaten American citizens and American companies for speech that is protected by our Constitution…Wyoming is drawing a line in the sand.” The measure aims to establish Wyoming as a refuge for free expression and digital innovation, directly challenging what lawmakers describe as an escalating campaign of transnational censorship pressure.

The legislation provides that any Wyoming resident, business, or US person with servers in the state may sue foreign governments or international organizations that attempt to enforce censorship demands against them for First Amendment protected speech. Each violation could cost the offending entity at least $1 million or 10% of its US revenue, whichever is higher.

The GRANITE Act prohibits Wyoming courts and agencies from recognizing or enforcing foreign censorship judgments. It also forbids any state cooperation with such orders, including extradition requests or data demands linked to speech that is constitutionally protected in the US. Under the bill, no Wyoming authority may help a foreign state investigate, penalize, or prosecute individuals over lawful expression.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

Service of process provisions ensure that foreign governments cannot use procedural loopholes, such as registered agents or international legal treaties, to intimidate Americans into silence. The bill emphasizes that even receiving a foreign censorship demand within Wyoming constitutes harm occurring inside the state’s jurisdiction.

A Response to Global Censorship Campaigns

Lawmakers cited specific examples in the bill’s findings, including the UK’s Office of Communications (Ofcom) threatening US-based platforms with fines, Brazil’s Supreme Court ordering the shutdown of X, and similar enforcement efforts from the EU’s Digital Services Act.

Supporters argue these cases show a growing pattern of international attempts to penalize American companies and individuals for online speech that is lawful under the First Amendment. Wyoming’s legislature describes this as “foreign coercion and intimidation” incompatible with constitutional protections.

The GRANITE Act positions Wyoming as a legal sanctuary for companies and individuals facing overseas censorship. The bill explicitly encourages technology firms to relocate or host their servers in the state to benefit from its protections.

Representative Singh summarized the principle simply: “The First Amendment doesn’t stop at the water’s edge just because a foreign bureaucrat sends a threatening letter. If you’re in Wyoming, you speak freely. Period.”

By establishing substantial penalties and a clear jurisdictional framework, Wyoming seeks to deter foreign authorities from targeting US speech through financial or legal pressure. The legislation is drafted to remain within federal constitutional boundaries, aligning itself with the federal SPEECH Act, which blocks enforcement of foreign defamation judgments inconsistent with the First Amendment.

Federal Attention

According to Singh’s office, a similar version of the GRANITE Act is now under review in Congress, with reported interest from the White House and the US State Department.

If enacted, this law could mark the strongest legal defense yet against extraterritorial censorship, reflecting a broader American effort to assert that domestic free speech protections cannot be overridden by foreign regimes or international bureaucracies.

Preston Byrne, a US-based attorney who represents online platforms 4Chan and Kiwi Farms in disputes over international censorship demands, was instrumental in drafting the Wyoming GRANITE Act.

Byrne describes the new law as a decisive response to foreign governments seeking to impose speech restrictions on American platforms through measures like the United Kingdom’s Online Safety Act. “If Australia attempted to enforce its social media ban against a company with a sufficient Wyoming nexus, the GRANITE Act’s shield would protect that company from that enforcement, and the ‘sword’ would expose Australia to a lawsuit with statutory damages of minimum $1 million,” Byrne said.

He explained that the law’s reach is not limited to Wyoming corporations but extends to anyone who establishes a basic connection to the state. “To use it, all you need to do is create the requisite Wyoming nexus, and hosting content in-state is enough,” Byrne said. This feature effectively turns Wyoming into a safe harbor for speech and digital publishing, allowing platforms to situate part of their infrastructure within the state to gain legal protection from censorship attempts originating overseas.

Byrne emphasized that the legislation respects the sovereignty of other nations while firmly defending the rights of those under Wyoming’s jurisdiction. “Foreign governments remain free to do what they want on their own soil. What GRANITE does is it stops foreign governments from communicating threats to persons with a Wyoming nexus, by making those threats toothless in Wyoming, and by imposing a high cost for making the threats,” he said.

Under the act, such “threats” could trigger lawsuits carrying statutory damages of at least $1 million per violation, along with attorney fees and other remedies.

Byrne characterized the law as not merely defensive but transformative in scope. “We are going to free the entire world with this law,” he said in a statement to Reclaim The Net, reflecting a broader ambition to extend the protections of the First Amendment into the digital sphere and to provide a model that other states could adopt.

By establishing a clear legal boundary against foreign censorship demands, Byrne believes the GRANITE Act could become the legal template for safeguarding free expression in the face of increasing global pressure to regulate online speech.