So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast

Episode 266: How Foreign Censors Target American Speakers
Host: Nico Perrino (FIRE)
Guest: Preston Byrne (Counsel, Internet Law & Emerging Technologies)
Date: March 19, 2026

Episode Overview

In this episode, Nico Perrino speaks with Preston Byrne—a dual US/UK lawyer, law professor, and noted defender of controversial online platforms—about the rising threat of foreign censorship laws targeting American speech. The discussion centers around the UK's Online Safety Act, Ofcom’s attempts at extraterritorial regulation, the cultural divergence between US and UK speech norms, and legal/policy resistance, including the “Granite Act.” The episode provides both legal insights and broader free speech commentary on the global digital landscape.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Preston Byrne’s Journey into Free Speech Law

• Introduction to Internet Law: Byrne began his career in London as a banking lawyer but developed a keen interest in technology and freedom, later pivoting to focus on the challenges of online speech and platform regulation.
  • "I have always been interested in the intersection of technology and freedom. ... The free speech journey in particular started with 4chan, if you can believe it." (03:12)
• Early Experiences: Byrne’s activism was ignited when he witnessed first-hand a peaceful protester getting criminally summoned in London for a poster critical of Scientology.
  • "A kid was holding up a sign that said, very simple sign: ‘Scientology is a dangerous cult.’ And he received a criminal summons from the City of London police. ... I was so stunned that this could happen in a western country... That started my journey down to becoming a free speech lawyer." (04:18)
• Transition to Defending Controversial Platforms: Byrne openly represents smaller, often marginalized platforms such as 4chan, Gab, Kiwi Farms, and Parler—many of which host controversial or offensive content, protected under US law.
  • "There are two ways you can represent a social media company. One, you work your way up in a big law firm ...The other way is you go for smaller companies that can't afford big law counsel or big law firms won't represent them." (07:20)

2. Nature of Content on “Controversial” Platforms

• Byrne argues that most content on sites like 4chan or Kiwi Farms is benign and that large companies and regulatory advocates exaggerate their harmfulness to deflect attention from mainstream platforms.
  • "About 99.5% of the content they host is completely anodyne and boring and stupid. … It's very easy to cherry pick content from these websites and paint them as lawless, anarchic spaces." (10:00)
• These platforms, he claims, often respond more efficiently to law enforcement than major platforms, flipping the narrative of their intransigence.
  • "One company I represent… their average turnaround time on an emergency data request from the FBI is something like 25 minutes… Whereas if you dealt with a larger platform, it would be measured in days." (11:07)

3. Foreign Censorship Laws and US Free Speech

• Types of Speech Targeted: Foreign governments usually first demand internal reports or risk assessments, gradually expanding their demands, even in the absence of unlawful conduct under US standards.
  • "Typically... you see the foreign government in question trying to take the first inch. They don't come in the front door and say, 'We're expecting full compliance with our laws…’" (17:34)
• Extraterritorial Reach: The UK’s Online Safety Act and regulator Ofcom assert jurisdiction over any platform “accessible” in the UK or deemed high-risk—even without assets, personnel, or active marketing to the UK.
  • "They drafted a law which purports to have extraterritorial effect in the United States … If your server in the United States is accessible from the United Kingdom, and we deem that your content is harmful to UK users, [they assert jurisdiction]." (19:54)
• Geo-blocking Not Sufficient: Even proactive measures to block access from the UK are deemed insufficient; regulators have circumvented such blocks and still threatened enforcement.
  • “[Ofcom] told this website to do this [geo-block], you then circumvented it … and now you're telling us that as a result … you're going to fine the site a million pounds or threaten them with prison time. It’s preposterous.” (23:35)
• Global Mandate Ambitions: Byrne characterizes the UK's posture as an attempted “global mandate,” more aggressive in scope than the tactics even of China or Russia.
  • "China and Russia wouldn't dare... They don't try to do this, what the UK is trying to do." (26:36)

4. Legal & Cultural Contrasts: US vs. UK

• First Amendment vs UK Speech Law: The US’s First Amendment provides a robust shield for offensive or controversial speech; the UK, despite being home to John Stuart Mill and Milton, has weak legal protections and an increasing record of arrests for “offensive” speech.
  • "In Cambridge ... debating ‘the right to offend’... Offensive speech in the United States is protected. We have no federal hate speech code..." (16:45)
  • "Something like 30 people a day are arrested in the United Kingdom for offensive speech. ... That’s far in a way above what happened even during the most sensorial period in American history." (30:52)
• Backsliding in the UK: Byrne notes cultural and legal regression on free speech in Britain, with politicians and the older generation favoring censorship, while a new, younger, more pro-speech movement emerges.
  • “A very rapid backsliding occurred between 2002 and 2022. ... The Communications Act [2003] ... sending a grossly offensive communication over a public telecommunications network.” (31:10)
  • "Anyone who's 45 and up or 50 and up in the UK is very much in favor of censorship... The younger set tends to be very anti-censorship." (34:44)

5. Legal Resistance: The Granite Act

• What is the Granite Act? A legislative proposal to shield Americans (and their platforms) from foreign censorship attempts:
  • "Guaranteeing Rights Against Novel International Tyranny and Extreme Extortion." (41:08)
• Main Provisions:
  • Shield: Confirms US courts don’t enforce foreign censorship orders; prohibits US agencies from cooperating with such demands.
  • Sword: Private right of action against foreign states threatening American companies (recoverable via foreign sovereign assets in the US); fines for those who try to enforce censorship abroad.
  • "Any attempt by a foreign sovereign to project a censorship rule in the United States will create liability... recoverable from that foreign sovereign's assets in the United States..." (41:10)
• State and Federal Movements: Granite Act introduced in Wyoming, proposed in New Hampshire, West Virginia, and anticipated at the federal level.
  • "We got it through the Wyoming House of Representatives 46 to 12... It's being taken up as an interim topic..." (42:11)
  • "I am reliably informed by public statements from federal officials that a federal shield bill is being worked on in the House and the Senate." (43:45)
• Legal Precedent: The act mirrors the approach of the US SPEECH Act (which prevents enforcement of foreign defamation judgments contrary to US free speech norms).
  • "We tried to replicate with this whole situation the same fact pattern that ... led to the Speech Act..." (45:31)

6. Big Tech, Compliance, and Stalemate

• Big Tech Challenges: Major platforms are beginning to attract foreign enforcement, but are generally slow to resist, treating free speech as just another regulatory compliance issue.
  • "There's a lot of institutional inertia at these larger companies and they just don't care about free speech that much." (54:26)
• Bluffing and Enforcement Limits: Byrne describes “bluff-calling” tactics, like responding to UK regulators with hamster memes, as both legal and public awareness tools.
  • "In this case, I want to win, and so I am willing to use it [memes]. And so far we've been using it to fairly great effect." (28:51)
• Byrne points out that so far, these aggressive postures by foreign censors have little practical enforcement effect in the US.
  • "They're bluffing their way through this by purporting to have the power to impose this on American companies. And so far, the bluff has been called." (56:50)

Notable Quotes & Moments

• On UK’s ambition:

  "Even if you're an American company that has no connection to the UK whatsoever and you've geo-blocked the country, it's still not enough. They still want you to impose the age verification mandate and doxing rules ... which is effectively a global mandate, right? A global mandate saying that their rules apply on a global basis."
  — Preston Byrne (00:00)

• On regulatory overreach:

  “China and Russia wouldn’t dare. … I’m not sure why the UK thinks it’s appropriate for them to do it. … I suspect it’s because it knows that there are aligned political forces in the United States who wouldn’t mind terribly if they got away with it.”
  — Preston Byrne (00:23)

• On the evolution of UK law:

  "You had a lot of different rules around public order and speech and malicious communications. But because the cultural background and the political background was different, you didn’t tend to see these cases used except in the most extreme examples…"
  — Preston Byrne (31:12)

• On the future of global Internet free speech:

  "We're standing on the shoulders of giants. It's those 90s precedents which are protecting us now ... They walked in here haughty and officious and arrogant and they said, 'You're going to obey our rules now.' We said, 'No, we're not. Sorry, this is America.'"
  — Preston Byrne (59:33)

• On the necessity of legislative action:

  "No battle is ever won. The fight for liberty requires eternal vigilance."
  — Nico Perrino (59:20)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [03:12] Preston’s background, discovering free speech law
• [10:00] The real nature of “controversial” platforms’ content
• [16:45] How foreign censorship laws differ from US standards
• [19:54] UK Online Safety Act—extraterritorial reach explained
• [23:35] Examples of geo-blocking and Ofcom’s persistence
• [26:36] Comparison with China/Russia censorship
• [30:52] UK vs. US arrest rates and legal/cultural divergence
• [41:06] What is the Granite Act?
• [45:31] Legislative parallels with the US SPEECH Act
• [54:26] Why “Big Tech” doesn’t walk away from foreign markets
• [56:50] The effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of foreign censorship threats
• [59:33] The importance of US legal precedent for global Internet freedom

Tone & Style

The episode is at once doctrinal, pragmatic, and irreverent. Byrne mixes legal expertise with lived anecdotes and a willingness to challenge authority—sometimes literally with memes. There is a palpable sense of urgency and “frontier spirit,” referencing both the historical cyberlibertarian movement and contemporary legal activism.

Summary

This episode delivers a comprehensive, lively, and sometimes provocative examination of how foreign censors—especially the UK—are seeking to shape what Americans can say online, and how lawyers, activists, and (sometimes) state legislatures are fighting back. It blends technical distinctions of law, sharp critiques of global regulatory overreach, and a foundational belief in the principles of free and open Internet—a battle whose outcome may shape the future of digital speech, globally.

For those interested in following Preston Byrne’s work and the ongoing cases, check the show notes for his Substack and legislative updates.