How do the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and Communications Act 2003 apply to social media posts in practice?

1. What the statutes actually cover and how they differ

Section 1 of the MCA 1988 makes it an offence to send a communication to another person that is indecent, grossly offensive, obscene, or threatening, or which conveys false information known to be false, with the intention of causing distress or anxiety, and it therefore requires a recipient or target for the communication ^{[2] [4]}; by contrast section 127 CA 2003 targets misuse of public electronic communications networks and can be engaged by material posted publicly (not necessarily addressed to a specific individual) that is grossly offensive, obscene or menacing ^{[5] [1]}.

2. How prosecutors and police apply the laws to social media posts

Crown Prosecution Service guidance explicitly treats both offences as communications offences that can be committed by any means including social media, email or text, and directs prosecutors to consider MCA s.1 and CA s.127 alongside later online-safety offences when assessing whether to charge ^{[1] [6]}; police forces have used both statutes in social-media cases, and prosecutors apply evidential and public-interest tests before charging, with some cases referred for senior approval where the target is a public figure ^{[1] [3]}.

3. Practical distinctions that matter in court and investigation

In practice the MCA’s requirement that a message be “sent to another person” means private messages and direct targeting fit neatly under s.1, and a solitary offensive tweet directed at an individual can be charged as a standalone malicious communication ^{[7] [4]}; meanwhile CA s.127’s focus on public electronic communications makes it the statutory hook for publicly visible posts, reposts or material on a user’s profile even where there is no identifiable single recipient ^{[2] [7]}.

4. How severity, intent and context influence outcomes

Sentencing and charging decisions depend on intent, harm and culpability: the MCA carries higher maximum penalties when prosecuted in the Crown Court (up to two years in some cases) while many CA 2003 prosecutions are magistrates’ court matters with lower maximums, and the CPS guidance and sentencing regimes require careful assessment of whether material was threatening, intended to cause anxiety, or merely offensive ^{[8] [7] [1]}.

5. Controversies, reforms and freedoms at stake

Legal commentators, civil liberties groups and the Law Commission have repeatedly warned that the overlap and ambiguity between MCA s.1 and CA s.127 produce uncertainty for users, platforms and police, and have recommended reform including a proposed replacement “harm‑based” communications offence to clarify scope and protect free speech ^{[9] [3]}; critics point to cases that sparked public outcry where arrests for provocative social‑media posts were seen as disproportionate, prompting CPS guidelines to narrow prosecutions under s.127 ^{[5] [6]}.

6. Bottom line for someone who posts — and limits of available reporting

Practically, a social media post can attract criminal liability under either statute depending on whether it was targeted or public, what it said, the sender’s intent and the harm caused, and prosecutors now weigh these factors against evidential thresholds and public‑interest considerations set out in CPS guidance ^{[7] [1]}; reporting and reform proposals show the law is applied unevenly in practice and that statutory overlap remains unresolved — sources consulted describe the law and practice but do not provide comprehensive national arrest or conviction statistics because centralised data on these specific offences is not published ^{[3] [1]}.