Which specific UK statutes were used to charge people for online speech in England during 2023?

1. Communications offences most often invoked: the everyday tools of enforcement

Police and prosecutors commonly bring online‑speech cases under communications‑focused criminal offences — notably section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 (criminalising the sending of grossly offensive/menacing messages) and section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 — and reporting on arrest trends ties these sections to the bulk of online‑related custody figures ^{[1] [2]}. The House of Lords Library and investigative reporting point to long‑running use of those provisions for tweets, posts and private messages that are judged threatening, harassing, or grossly offensive ^{[1] [2]}.

2. The Online Safety Act 2023: a structural change with prosecutorial and regulatory effects

Parliamentary and academic sources describe the Online Safety Act 2023 as the major legislative overhaul for online harms enacted in 2023, which places duties on platforms and expands Ofcom’s regulatory role; critics and some commentators argue it also changes the practical enforcement landscape for online content and may be used alongside criminal law ^{[3] [4]}. Reporting and advocacy groups assert that, since parts of the act came into force later, it has already been linked in public debate to hundreds of charges and prosecutions for online "speech crimes," though sources differ on the timing and precise scope of criminal charges related directly to the Act ^{[5] [3]}.

3. Public order, hate crime and terrorism statutes also in play

Beyond communications offences, the legal framework cited in coverage includes public order and hate‑speech provisions (for example revisions to the Public Order Act discussed in overviews of speech law) as routes for charging speech that stirs up racial or religious hatred or incites violence; academic and advocacy pieces place these statutes alongside the Communications Act when explaining which laws are used for online posts ^{[6] [7]}. Terrorism‑related offences and other specialised criminal laws are referenced in broader reporting on online extremist content and unlawful propaganda ^[8].

4. Numbers, context and contested interpretation of “arrests for online speech”

Multiple outlets quote large arrest totals (widely reported as around 12,000 in 2023), but detailed breakdowns are patchy in the sources provided; the House of Lords Library points to datasets showing arrests and convictions under the communications offences across recent years ^[1]. Commentators emphasise that many arrests relate to threats, harassment, hate crime or false terror threats rather than mere expression of opinion, and that conviction rates differ from arrest rates — a nuance highlighted in critical analyses ^{[2] [1]}.

5. Competing viewpoints: public safety vs chilling effect

Supporters of tougher online regulation and prosecutions argue these laws protect victims and public safety (noted in descriptions of the Online Safety Bill/Act’s aims), while civil‑liberties groups warn the combination of broad regulatory powers and enduring criminal offences risks chilling lawful speech and pressuring platforms to over‑remove content ^{[8] [3] [4]}. Parliamentary and NGO sources explicitly present both perspectives when debating how communications offences and the Online Safety Act intersect with Article 10 rights ^{[6] [4]}.

6. What reporting does not show (limitations and unanswered questions)

Available sources do not provide a definitive, itemised list of every statute used to charge individuals in England for online speech during calendar year 2023, nor do they supply a fully disaggregated accounting tying each arrest to a specific statutory charge for that year — the public record offered in the cited materials instead highlights the main statutes in regular use (Communications Act s.127, Malicious Communications Act s.1), the rising arrest totals, and the new regulatory frame of the Online Safety Act ^{[1] [2] [3]}. For a complete, charge‑by‑charge catalogue one would need Crown Prosecution Service or police FOI datasets, which are not present in the sources provided (not found in current reporting).

If you want, I can attempt to draft a focused FOI request template to ask police forces or the CPS for a year‑by‑year breakdown of statutory charges tied to online posts in 2023.