Brussels fined X. London regulates American websites. Australia sent an American lawyer a direction backed by prison. How foreign censorship reaches Americans, the playbook written down in advance, and the shield Congress can pass.
On October 15, two things happened in Australia within a few hours of each other.
In the morning, the American lawyer Preston Byrne disclosed that Australia’s Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion had called his conduct “disgraceful” and sent a further direction addressed to him personally, after his client, the American platform Gab, published an earlier notice it had been told to keep secret (Restore the First). Under Australia’s Royal Commissions Act 1902, breaching that kind of direction carries up to 12 months in prison (Restore the First). Byrne’s answer was that it was not properly served, has no binding force here, and is unconstitutional, and he forwarded it to members of Congress (The Noticer).
Later that day, the Australian government introduced a “Digital Duty of Care” law with penalties of up to A$109.2 million (Minister Anika Wells).
Antisemitism is real, and Australia has every right to investigate it in Australia. That is not the question. The question is jurisdiction: whether a foreign government can reach into the United States and decide what Americans may publish.
Right now, the answer depends less on our courts than on whether American companies say no. Most of them don’t.
The world’s speech runs on American platforms
The First Amendment restrains one government: ours. For two centuries that was enough, because ours was the only government that could reach an American printer.
The internet changed that. A post written in Ohio is published in Brussels, London, Sydney, Ottawa and São Paulo at the same moment, and every regulator in those places now claims some power over it.
Foreign regulators don’t need to win in an American court. They only need the platform to comply. When a U.S. company changes its global rules to satisfy one foreign regulator, the change reaches users in Kansas and Kenya alike.
Byrne, who has represented American targets of Britain’s Online Safety Act, reports that of 197 American targets of the UK’s enforcement program, only four U.S. companies refused (Preston Byrne). “Most censorship happens in secret,” he writes, “hidden away from public view, as intended.”
That makes the First Amendment more than a domestic rule. It is the last legal high-water mark for free expression anywhere. If foreign leverage on American companies can wear it down, there is no refuge left for the dissident in Britain, the journalist in Brazil or the researcher in Australia.
Defending it is not American exceptionalism. It is how a protection written for one country ends up protecting everyone who publishes through it.
Six fronts, one direction
The European Union. On December 5, 2025, the European Commission fined X €120 million, its first-ever penalty under the Digital Services Act (European Commission). X is challenging it in the EU General Court, and on September 24 the U.S. Justice Department applied to join X’s side, arguing that the Commission was trying to extend its authority to American companies outside its jurisdiction (Reuters).
The United Kingdom. Ofcom has fined the American site 4chan a total of £520,000 (Restore the First case file). When 4chan sued Ofcom in Washington, the court dismissed the case on September 14 on foreign sovereign immunity grounds, without ever reaching the First Amendment question (Byrne & Storm).
Australia. The Royal Commission’s directions to Gab and its lawyer, and a new duty-of-care bill that has been sent to a Senate inquiry due to report before Parliament rises at the end of November (ABC).
Canada. Three bills in five years. The criminal-law half of the failed Online Harms Act returned as the Combatting Hate Act, which received royal assent on June 18, 2026 (LEGISinfo). Its platform half returned as the Safe Social Media Act, C-34, with a new Digital Safety Commission, an under-16 social media restriction and AI chatbot rules (Michael Geist).
Brazil. In August 2024, Justice Alexandre de Moraes ordered X suspended nationwide until it complied with his orders, paid its fines and appointed a legal representative (Reuters).
Russia. In September, Russia’s censor sent a Texas web host a demand to remove the Human Rights Foundation’s Tyranny Tracker. The foundation refused. The host geo-blocked the site from Russia anyway, in under 24 hours (Preston Byrne). Byrne calls it the first publicly known case of Russia censoring Americans in America.
The democracies and the autocracy use different words: safety, harm, disinformation, national law. The mechanism is the same. Lean on the American company, and let the company do the censoring.
THE EU FINE, LINE BY LINE
The Commission’s three findings: the “blue checkmark” design, the advertising repository, and “the failure to provide access to public data for researchers” (European Commission). Deutsche Welle reported the split as €45 million, €35 million and €40 million (DW). The fine was formally for transparency rules.
Subscribe to follow The Global Front.
The playbook, in its own words
In October 2024, Paul D. Thacker and Matt Taibbi published internal planning notes from the Center for Countering Digital Hate, a London-founded group with a Washington office (The DisInformation Chronicle).
Under “Annual Priorities,” the notes list four items. Kill Musk’s Twitter. Advertising focus. Trigger EU & UK regulatory action. Progress towards change in USA and support for STAR (CCDH notes, DocumentCloud).
The same January 8, 2024 meeting records CEO Imran Ahmed: “RFK - black ops being set up to look at RFK. Nervousness about the impact of him on the election.” Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was then a candidate for president.
Elsewhere in the notes, staff ask whether CCDH can “attach our name” to Canada’s Online Safety Bill with “no actual staff in Canada.” Ahmed notes that there is now legislation in the EU, UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, and says: “Showing a global movement will be powerful” (CCDH notes).
The House Judiciary Committee cited the notes when it pressed CCDH for documents under its standing subpoena (House Judiciary letter, Nov. 7, 2024).
Ahmed has said “Kill Musk’s Twitter” was internal “shorthand” (The Spectator). Readers can weigh that. What is not in dispute is what followed.
The EU fined X. Speaking to fellow researchers in 2026, Ahmed himself marked December 2025 as the moment “British and European authorities began using those powers in earnest” (Foundation for Freedom Online).
We do not claim the memo caused the fine. We note that the goal was written down first.
This is why the Americans CCDH named as the “Disinformation Dozen,” myself included, describe the operation as a foreign influence campaign aimed at Americans. America First Legal has asked the Justice Department to examine whether CCDH’s U.S. arm should register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (AFL letter). The Department has announced no action, no court has found a FARA violation, and CCDH says it is an independent research nonprofit.
It never arrives labeled censorship
No government passes a law called the End of Free Speech Act. Britain’s version was sold as online safety. The model travels in three vehicles: a framework, a child-safety bill and, next, AI regulation.
STAR, the blueprint. CCDH calls its STAR framework (Safety by Design, Transparency, Accountability, Responsibility) “a global standard for regulating social media” (CCDH). Its 2024 report urges governments to “enshrine duties of care to address online harms” and scores countries on how much of it they have adopted (STAR report).
Ahmed has explained that in practice the letters run in a different order: “they go as TARS: transparency is required for accountability; when people are held accountable, you have to make them bear economic responsibility for it; and eventually we think that will lead to safety by design” (Columbia Journalism Review).
None of the four words mentions speech. Each becomes a lever over it. CCDH says it “successfully secured two amendments to strengthen data access to researchers” in Britain’s Act (CCDH). In Brussels, €40 million of X’s fine was about researcher access. Groups like CCDH are the researchers who would use it.
KOSA, the duty of care comes to America. The heart of Britain’s Act is a set of legal duties on platforms. The Kids Online Safety Act, S. 1748, has 76 Senate cosponsors and was reported out of the Commerce Committee on August 5 (Congress.gov). CCDH endorsed it, praising it for making platforms “safe by design” (CCDH).
The Electronic Frontier Foundation explains how a child-safety rule becomes a speech rule (EFF). Nobody orders a post removed. The liability makes removal the cheapest choice.
AI, the next horse. Ofcom has told AI companies that the Online Safety Act already reaches generative AI, and that AI content shared by users “would be regulated in exactly the same way as human-generated content” (Ofcom). Australia’s new bill sets minimum safety standards for “AI chatbots” too (Minister Wells).
On August 12, 2026, CCDH’s UK company changed its legal name from the Center for Countering Digital Hate Ltd to the Center for Countering Digital Harm Ltd (Companies House). Hate is a speech word. Harm is a regulatory word, and it is the operative word of the Online Safety Act.
AI is becoming how people search, read, learn and write. A duty of care over what an AI may say is a duty of care over the answers a whole society is allowed to get. The risks of AI are real and worth debating. Speech controls dressed up as product safety are not the answer.
Washington pushed back
In December 2025, the State Department barred five Europeans, including former EU Commissioner Thierry Breton and Ahmed, saying they “have led organized efforts to coerce American platforms to censor, demonetize, and suppress American viewpoints they oppose” (Reuters).
Secretary Rubio’s written determination on Ahmed, quoted by the federal court, lists the leaked “kill Musk’s Twitter” and “trigger EU and UK regulatory action” priorities among its reasons (Ahmed v. Rubio).
The courts have pushed back too. In July, Judge James Boasberg paused the visa policy, writing that it likely “burdens protected speech and association on the basis of viewpoint” (Politico). In September, Judge Loretta Preska dismissed Ahmed’s own suit for lack of jurisdiction, not on the merits (Ahmed v. Rubio), and his appeal is now before the Second Circuit (CourtListener).
WHAT THE RECORD DOES AND DOES NOT SHOW
The deportation determination rests on the immigration law’s foreign-policy ground, not on FARA (Ahmed v. Rubio). Ahmed calls the case retaliation for his speech, and no court has ruled on that question. We think the conduct in the record, pressuring American companies and recruiting foreign regulators against American speech, is the issue. Either way, the principle being tested is the one this piece is about: whether foreign pressure on Americans’ speech has consequences.
The shield: GRANITE
Visa bans reach individuals. They don’t stop a foreign regulator from fining an American company or threatening its lawyer. The 4chan case showed the gap: an American court could not even reach the First Amendment question.
Byrne drafted the fix, the GRANITE Act. No American court would enforce a foreign fine or order that punishes protected speech, and Americans targeted by one could sue the foreign government here (Preston Byrne).
It has moved fast. Rep. Michael Rulli introduced H.R. 10174 on August 27 (Congress.gov), and Sen. Mike Lee introduced S. 5478 on September 23 (Congress.gov). On October 15, the same day as the Australian letter, Rep. Thomas Massie became the House bill’s first cosponsor (Restore the First).
One cosponsor does not pass a bill. It needs more names, from both parties. Byrne’s point about the Russia case is that this is not a partisan fight: “The GRANITE Act is necessary to protect the First Amendment online, and the need for it is urgent” (Preston Byrne).
The Fifth Estate broke these stories
Look at who told the public about everything in this piece. The CCDH notes were published by two independent journalists on Substack. The Twitter Files, documenting government requests to moderate Americans’ speech, went to independent reporters including Matt Taibbi, Michael Shellenberger and Bari Weiss (Racket News). The Australian letters were disclosed by Byrne and Gab’s founder themselves, on X (The Noticer).
That is the Fifth Estate: independent writers, podcasters, researchers and citizen journalists who answer to readers, not to regulators or advertisers. It exists at scale because a handful of platforms, X above all, refused to become the enforcement arm of every government that asked.
That is why the memo’s first priority was a platform, not a post. And it is why the fines, the suspensions and the duty-of-care bills keep landing on the same few companies.
Not America against the world
None of this is a quarrel with the British, European, Australian, Canadian or Brazilian people. Many of the strongest voices against the Online Safety Act are British.
The First Amendment grew out of English law, from Magna Carta to the trial of William Penn to John Wilkes. The Americans of 1776 did not reject that tradition. They accused the British government of abandoning it, and then wrote it down.
That is the argument of Restore the First’s Runnymede Principles. The second reads: “No regulator or court should reach speech that was lawful where it was spoken, in either direction” (Across the Water). In either direction. We ask nothing of other countries that we would not ask of our own government.
Four things to do this week
Back GRANITE. Ask your representative and senators to cosponsor H.R. 10174 and S. 5478 (take action).
Pass JAWBONE. Foreign pressure works best through our own government. JAWBONE gives Americans a remedy when officials lean on platforms (JAWBONE Act).
See the record. The Targeting Tracker links every published characterization of the twelve Americans on the “Disinformation Dozen” list to its source (Targeting Tracker).
Sign at Runnymede. Run an organization, here or abroad? Endorse the five principles. Each signer speaks only for itself (Runnymede Principles).
The full interactive version, with every source, is at Restore the First: The Global Front.
WHAT WE DON’T CLAIM
We don’t claim any foreign government directed CCDH, that the memo caused the EU fine, or that any court has found a FARA violation. The Justice Department has not acted on the FARA request. The deportation determination rests on the immigration law’s foreign-policy ground, and Ahmed’s appeal is pending. Preston Byrne is quoted from his public writing; he did not write or review this piece, and quoting him does not mean he endorses the coalition.
Each people is sovereign over its own law. No government should censor across the water what another people’s law protects.
“Censoring Americans in America is a deal breaker. It is a red line.”
Sarah B. Rogers, U.S. Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy, on GB News (reported by Sayer Ji)
Sources
Restore the First: https://restorethe1st.com/media/features/preston-byrne/
The Noticer: https://www.noticer.news/gab-founder-mocks-royal-commission/
Minister Anika Wells: https://minister.infrastructure.gov.au/wells/media-release/digital-duty-care-next-step-australias-world-leading-reforms
Preston Byrne: https://prestonbyrne.com/2026/10/14/dems-granite/
European Commission: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/document/print/en/ip_25_2934/IP_25_2934_EN.pdf
Restore the First case file: https://restorethe1st.com/foreign-censorship/cases.html
Byrne & Storm: https://prestonbyrne.com/2026/09/15/4chan_ofcom_mtd/
ABC: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-10-15/anika-wells-opens-door-to-big-tech-lawsuits/107271002
Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/technology/brazil-judge-takes-musks-x-fake-news-crusade-ramps-up-2024-08-30/
The DisInformation Chronicle:
CCDH notes, DocumentCloud: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25177521/portfolio-planning-monthly-meeting-notes.pdf
House Judiciary letter, Nov. 7, 2024: https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2024-11-07%20JDJ%20to%20CCDH%20re%20subpoena%20follow%20up.pdf
The Spectator: https://spectator.com/article/labours-war-with-elon-musk/
Foundation for Freedom Online: https://foundationforfreedomonline.com/ccdh-founder-admits-disinfo-researchers-fuel-global-censorship/
AFL letter: https://docs.reclaimthenet.org/CCDH-FARA-Letter-10312024.pdf
CCDH: https://counterhate.com/research/public-support-for-social-media-reform-star/
STAR report: https://counterhate.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/CCDH.STAR-Framework.Report-FINAL.pdf
Columbia Journalism Review: https://www.cjr.org/tow_center/qa-on-being-sued-by-elon-musk.php
Congress.gov: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/1748
CCDH: https://counterhate.com/blog/ccdh-kosa-will-provide-a-safer-online-environment-for-children
EFF: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/08/senate-should-reject-kosas-privacy-risks
Companies House: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/11633127
Ahmed v. Rubio: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-sd-new-yor/394170.html
CourtListener: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/74773417/ahmed-v-rubio/
Congress.gov: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/10174
Restore the First: https://restorethe1st.com/media/features/thomas-massie/
Congress.gov: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/5478/text
Racket News:
Across the Water: https://restorethe1st.com/across-the-water/
take action: https://restorethe1st.com/foreign-censorship/act.html#granite
JAWBONE Act: https://restorethe1st.com/act-jawbone.html
Targeting Tracker: https://restorethe1st.com/tracker/
Runnymede Principles: https://restorethe1st.com/across-the-water/#principles
Restore the First: The Global Front: https://restorethe1st.com/foreign-censorship/global/
reported by Sayer Ji: https://read.sayerji.com/p/the-red-line-when-the-united-states
Images: Magna Carta Memorial photo by Mark (CC BY 2.0); Berlaymont photo by KenSwe72 (CC BY 4.0); Newseum photo by Smuconlaw (CC BY-SA 4.0), all via Wikimedia Commons. Document images rendered from the original CCDH notes, House Judiciary letter and European Commission release, highlights added. Charts: Restore the First / Sayer Ji.
I really appreciate the care in which you connect the very dangerous dots the CCDH and other foreign organizations are using to undermine our 1st amendment. It is extremely concerning to me and have have called my Senators and Reps demanding their attention to the important bills that could protect us further. But I do feel like you fall down on the request for us to take action. You do not give a good description of the GRANITE act or the other pieces of legislation. Your articles are always very long. I think it would make sense to be sure you give us a better accounting of what the legislation provides and why you feel it is important for us to take action. I often feel you fall down on what you are requesting from us a voters and defenders of the 1st Amendment. Thank you Sayer Ji for all you do and for your passion.
Free speech is the greatest gift that Americans have, at least on their own soil. But as this article says, that right is under attack from actors all over the world. It seems to me that free speech now requires a worldwide organized movement to counter a multinational campaign to suppress it. There are organizations in many countries devoted to protecting free speech, but I am not aware of any international organization that can link these organizations together for international action. If there isn't such an organization perhaps Sayer and others like him can help form or facilitate such a worldwide alliance.