America Builds a Wall Against Australian Censorship

Australia‘s Internet regulator can (and does) send censorship demands across the Pacific. Making Americans obey those demands is another matter entirely.

At its meeting in late September, a Wyoming legislative committee approved a proposal to resist foreign censorship enforcement by four votes to one. The measure is headed towards a vote during Wyoming’s 2027 legislative session.

Its premise should be uncontroversial: Americans should not lose their constitutional speech protections because a foreign government dislikes something published online.

For Australians watching eSafety’s expanding ambitions, that offers a welcome prospect. Overseas resistance could put practical limits on demands that our own political class is too willing to indulge.

The proposal is a revised Wyoming GRANITE Act. It would prevent Wyoming state courts from enforcing foreign judgments where constitutionally protected expression is a substantial factor in, or necessary element of, the liability or compelled action. Its definition reaches final, binding foreign orders, subpoenas, administrative actions and fines.

Subject to federal law, it would also prohibit state and local assistance with specified enforcement, investigations, extradition and international legal-assistance requests involving protected expression.

That is a refusal to lend American institutions to foreign censorship.

The Australian connection is concrete. In 2024, eSafety pursued X over footage of the stabbing of Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel at his Sydney church. X restricted access in Australia, but eSafety argued that access to the social media site through virtual private networks meant further steps were needed.

The regulator sought removal from X altogether or measures making the footage inaccessible to all users. In May, the Federal Court refused to extend the interim injunction. eSafety discontinued those court proceedings in June.

Whatever one thinks about publishing disturbing footage, the jurisdictional question remains: should an Australian official determine what a person in America may see?

Wyoming’s proposal approaches that question from the receiving end. A foreign regulator may claim authority, but that claim should not automatically enlist a Wyoming court or official.

Consider an American publisher facing a foreign penalty over speech protected at home. If collecting that penalty requires proceedings in Wyoming’s state courts, the proposed shield could obstruct that route. If foreign authorities seek meaningful assistance from Wyoming officials in a covered speech case, the proposal would give those officials a statutory obligation to refuse.

The gain is practical. A demand backed by an available enforcement mechanism carries more weight than one whose enforcement faces a clear legal barrier. Greater certainty could give a social media platform more confidence to resist instead of deleting material simply to avoid an expensive fight.

However a Wyoming shield does not remove every commercial pressure. A platform with assets or operations in Australia would still face Australian enforcement. And any American legal victory therefore does not restore access for Australian readers. We still need to fight censorship here.

But the argument is moving beyond one state. Senator Mike Lee introduced a federal GRANITE bill into the US Congress on 23 September. It proposes barring US courts from enforcing foreign censorship measures conflicting with the First Amendment and allowing affected US persons to seek a declaration of unenforceability.

Its significance is the national reach it seeks: Congress can address barriers that Wyoming cannot remove on its own.

Australian officials should take note. The rest of the world is entitled to resist having our regulatory choices imposed upon it.

For too long, Australia has treated the internet’s global reach as an invitation to extend its bureaucratic power. But these proposed laws give social media platforms solid rock to stand upon; a legislative tool to further protect the American constitutional right to free speech.

Wyoming has not yet finished building its wall. The US Congress seems to have just started. The American have, however, advanced a clear principle that deserves applaud: foreign censorship demands should not acquire American enforcement simply by arriving in an official envelope.

“The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race.”
– John Stuart Mill