What UK laws have been used to prosecute tweets and online posts?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
UK prosecutors and police rely on a web of existing offences to bring cases over tweets and posts — notably Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 (grossly offensive/menacing messages), the Malicious Communications Act 1988, the Public Order Act 1986 and newer tools such as the Online Safety Act 2023; Parliament’s research brief lists these statutes explicitly [1]. Recent reporting and parliamentary documents show thousands of arrests for “offensive” online communications in recent years and political debate about whether the laws are too vague or are being applied appropriately [2] [1].
1. What laws are actually used to prosecute online posts?
Prosecutors pick from long‑standing criminal statutes rather than a single “social media law.” The Commons Library briefing names the Public Order Act 1986, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Online Safety Act 2023, the Communications Act 2003 and the Malicious Communications Act 1988 as the principal statutes used when posts are turned into criminal charges [1]. Media and legal outlets have repeatedly highlighted Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 — which criminalises sending “grossly offensive, obscene, indecent or menacing” messages on public electronic communications networks — as a common basis for arrest and prosecution [3] [4].
2. How do prosecutors decide which offence to use?
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) guides charging decisions and must apply public‑interest tests and evidential thresholds; the Commons briefing notes that the CPS determines whether and which offence to bring and that sentencing then falls to independent judges within statutory maxima [1]. The Week and other outlets record CPS guidance emphasising the high threshold required for “grossly offensive” and hate‑related prosecutions and the need to weigh freedom of expression against evidence of intent or likelihood to cause harm [5].
3. Scale and controversy: arrests, prosecutions and political pushback
European Parliament materials and news reporting record figures that have alarmed civil liberties groups: a Times report cited in an EP question claimed over 12,000 arrests in 2023 for “offensive” online communications — a figure used to argue there is routine policing of annoyance, inconvenience or anxiety online [2]. That scale has fuelled political pushback: senior figures and commentators have argued police are policing “culture wars,” while others call some arrests “proportionate” when posts are judged to incite hatred or violence [6] [7].
4. High‑profile cases show the law’s contours — and its limits
Cases such as the long‑running “Twitter Joke Trial” and later prosecutions for racist or violent‑incitement posts illuminate how courts interpret “grossly offensive” and “stirring up” thresholds [4]. The BBC and other reporting show convictions can lead to substantial sentences in high‑culpability cases — for example, a 31‑month sentence for stirring up racial hatred following the Southport killings — illustrating that courts will impose custody when intent and likely harm are strongly established [8].
5. Newer frameworks and institutional responses
The Online Safety Act 2023 does not itself criminalise speech in the way older statutes do; instead it creates safety duties on platforms, shifting some regulatory burden onto services to remove illegal content and protect users [1]. Separately, government consultations on private prosecutions and single‑justice procedures — driven in part by the Post Office Horizon scandal — show broader concern about who brings prosecutions and how oversight should work, a relevant background for cases that begin with platform referrals, police reports or private actors [9] [10].
6. Competing viewpoints and why the debate matters
Civil liberties advocates warn that broadly worded offences — those criminalising material that causes “annoyance” or “distress” — chill free expression and invite over‑policing of online debate [2]. Police and prosecutors counter that they must act where speech risks provoking violence or serious harm, and CPS statements stress prosecutions proceed only when legal tests are met [11] [6]. Journalistic and legal commentary documents both under‑ and over‑enforcement concerns: some argue too many arrests are made with few prosecutions following, while others point to legitimate convictions for incitement and organised harm [12] [7].
7. Limitations of available reporting and what it doesn’t say
Available sources list the principal statutes and give arrest and case examples, but they do not provide a single definitive tally of prosecutions by statute over time; the Commons briefing and media reports outline trends and controversies but offer different figures and emphases [1] [2]. Detailed prosecutorial statistics broken down by specific offence, platform and final disposals are not found in the current reporting provided here (not found in current reporting).
Final note: The law applied to a particular tweet or post depends on context — wording, intent, target, timing and prosecution choices — and that messy reality is driving both high‑profile prosecutions and ongoing political and legal reviews [1] [7].