PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Aug 10, 2010
(This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the Senate on July 19, 2010. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Securing the Protection of Our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage Act or SPEECH Act - (Sec. 3) Prohibits a domestic court from recognizing or enforcing a foreign judgment for defamation unless the domestic court determines that: (1) the defamation law applied in the foreign court's adjudication provided at least as much protection for freedom of speech and press in that case as would be provided by the First Amendment to the Constitution and by the constitution and law of the state in which the domestic court is located; or (2) even if the defamation law applied in the foreign court's adjudication did not provide as much protection for freedom of speech and press as the First Amendment to the Constitution and law of the state, the party opposing recognition or enforcement of that foreign judgment would have been found liable for defamation by a domestic court applying the First Amendment to the Constitution and the constitution and law of the state in which the domestic court is located.
Prohibits a domestic court from recognizing or enforcing a foreign judgment for defamation unless the domestic court determines that the exercise of personal jurisdiction by the foreign court comported with the due process requirements imposed on domestic courts by the Constitution. Requires the party seeking recognition or enforcement of the foreign judgment to bear the burden of making the showing that the foreign court's exercise of personal jurisdiction comported with such due process requirements.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Prohibits a domestic court from recognizing or enforcing a foreign judgment for defamation against the provider of an interactive computer service unless the domestic court determines that the judgment would be consistent with provisions of the Communications Act of 1934 affording protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material, if the information that is the subject of such judgment had been provided in the United States. Requires the party seeking recognition or enforcement of the foreign judgment to bear the burden of establishing that the judgment is consistent with such provisions.
Provides that an appearance by a party in a foreign court rendering a foreign judgment to which this Act applies shall not deprive such party of the right to oppose the recognition or enforcement of the judgment under this Act, or represent a waiver of any jurisdictional claims.
Allows removal by any defendant to the U.S. district court for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending, without regard to the amount in controversy, of any action brought in a state domestic court to enforce a foreign judgment for defamation in which: (1) any plaintiff is a citizen of a state different from any defendant; (2) any plaintiff is a foreign state or a citizen or subject of a foreign state and any defendant is a citizen of a state; or (3) any plaintiff is a citizen of a state and any defendant is a foreign state or citizen or subject of a foreign state.
Provides that any U.S. person, against whom a foreign judgment is entered on the basis of the content of any writing, utterance, or other speech by that person that has been published, may bring an action in a U.S. district court for a declaration that the foreign judgment is repugnant to the Constitution of laws of the United States.
Allows the award of reasonable attorney fees under certain conditions if the party opposing recognition or enforcement of the judgment prevails.
Expresses the sense of the Congress that, for the purpose of pleading a cause of action for a declaratory judgment, a foreign judgment for defamation or any similar offense shall constitute a case of actual controversy under the federal judicial code.
People & committees
Rep. Cohen, Steve [D-TN-9] · D–TN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 111-223.
Became Public Law No: 111-223.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Cleared for White House.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendment Agreed to by voice vote. (text as House agreed to Senate amendment: CR H6126-6127)
Resolving differences -- House actions: On motion that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendment Agreed to by voice vote.(text as House agreed to Senate amendment: CR H6126-6127)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on the motion to supend the rules and agree to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2765.
Mr. Cohen moved that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendment. (consideration: CR H6126-6129)
By Senator Leahy from Committee on the Judiciary filed written report. Report No. 111-224. Additional views filed.
By Senator Leahy from Committee on the Judiciary filed written report. Report No. 111-224. Additional views filed.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5978-5980; text as passed Senate: CR S5978-5979)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S5978-5980; text as passed Senate: CR S5978-5979)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 460.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Leahy with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Leahy with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
Committee on the Judiciary. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings held.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H6771-6772)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H6771-6772)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 2765.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H6770-6773)
Mr. Cohen moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 77.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 111-154.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 111-154.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.2765 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.2765 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.2765 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.2765 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.