The gist

Blocks U.S. courts from enforcing foreign censorship judgments against Americans if the speech would be legal under the First Amendment.

Who wins, who loses

• Wins: U.S. social media companies, American users posting online, free speech advocates.
• Loses: Foreign regulators (like European Union enforcers of the Digital Services Act), plaintiffs suing Americans abroad over speech.

What it does

• Bars U.S. courts from enforcing foreign judgments punishing First Amendment-protected speech.
• Protects Section 230 platforms from foreign content-moderation orders.
• Blocks extradition of Americans for foreign speech-crime charges.
• Creates a private lawsuit right with $25,000 statutory damages plus attorney's fees.

Why should I care?

Supporters say foreign 'hate speech' or 'misinformation' laws are being used to silence Americans posting online, and U.S. courts shouldn't help enforce them. Critics argue this weakens international cooperation and shields genuinely harmful content like harassment or disinformation from any accountability. It directly affects platforms teens use daily like Instagram and TikTok. Where do you land? Vote below and use "Tell Your Rep" to make sure your voice reaches Congress.