Are 30 People a Day Really Being Arrested for Online Speech in the UK?

Breaking down the viral claim - and what the law actually says about “offensive” messages.

Every so often, a statistic circulates that sounds dystopian. “Police make 30 arrests a day for offensive online messages” was one such headline by The Times, and recently repeated by US conservative media figure Charlie Kirk as supposed evidence of UK ‘thought police’ in action:

“I just came back from the UK. Every day there, 30 people are arrested for social media posts the government says are "dangerous" or "offensive" because they oppose things like mass migration or Islam. In the UK, people are arrested for silently praying or holding signs outside abortion clinics.”

Photo by Glenn Carstens-Peters on Unsplash

So, is it true?

The Times reported that in 2023, 12,183 arrests were made under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 and section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988. This translates to approximately 33 arrests per day.

Job done - the statistic is true then…..👍🏻

Well, the number may be true, but the implications aren’t so straightforward.

First, we need to understand the two sections of the acts being referenced:

Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003

This criminalises certain types of communications that use public electronic communications networks, such as the internet or mobile phone networks.

There are two types of offences covered:

• Offences related to the nature of the message or content being sent - a message that “is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character” - eg:

  • Posting a video on social media that mocks a tragedy in a way that is grossly offensive to the victims or the public. (such as posting a video of a burning effigy of Grenfell Tower)

  • Sending a direct message threatening physical harm to someone.

  • Sharing images or videos that are sexually explicit and intended to shock or offend.

• Offences related to the sender's purpose and behaviour, regardless of the specific content - using networks to “send a message that he knows to be false“ or persistently uses the networks to “cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another” - eg:

  • Repeatedly making prank or silent phone calls to someone to annoy or disturb them.

  • Making false bomb threats.

  • Sending multiple false messages to someone, such as repeatedly claiming their loved one is in danger when it is not true.

  • Posting a series of harassing or distressing messages about an individual on social media over a period of time

Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988

This is very similar to the previous one, but covers letters, emails and articles rather than social media, WhatsApps and mobile phone networks.

It also covers offences that are indecent, grossly offensive and relate to “causing distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated.”

Examples that would be covered by this include:

• Sending an email with graphic, degrading comments about someone’s race, religion, or sexual orientation.

• Sending a letter threatening to assault a neighbour unless they comply with a demand.

• Spreading false rumours that someone has committed a crime.

• Sending an ex-partner daily emails containing abusive language over several weeks.

It is worth noting that much of this has been repealed and is now covered by the Online Safety Act 2023, which came into effect in 2024, but as the Times article is about 2023 figures, it is still relevant.

So, I think you can see that the types of offences covered by these two laws are not just “opposing mass migration or Islam” on Twitter!

These aren’t people being policed for their thoughts or opinions. They are people being arrested for intimidation, harassment, making fake terror threats, and committing hate speech or incitement to violence.

What about Free Speech?

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) Guidance on Communications Offences is very clear that Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights ('ECHR') expressly protects speech that offends, shocks, and disturbs - "Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having”.

Any charges being brought against someone under these laws must be carefully weighed up against their ECHR freedoms.

The bar for charging someone under these communications offences is pretty high.

The CPS Guidance states: “The Court's assessment of whether the conduct crosses the boundary from the unattractive, even unreasonable, to oppressive and unacceptable must pay due regard to the importance of freedom of expression and the need for any restrictions upon the right to be necessary, proportionate and established convincingly.”

Charges can only be brought if the communication is MORE than:

• Offensive, shocking, or disturbing; or

• Satirical, iconoclastic, or rude comment; or

• The expression of unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, or banter or humour, even if distasteful to some or painful to those subjected to it; or

• An uninhibited and ill thought-out contribution to a casual conversation where participants expect a certain amount of repartee or "give and take";

• This is with reference to "contemporary standards… the standards of an open and just multi-racial society", assessing whether the particular message in its particular context is beyond the pale of what is tolerable in society.

Trends

While the number of arrests has risen steadily over the last few years from 5,502 in 2017 to 12,183 in 2023, the number of sentences given has almost halved from 1,995 in 2015 to 1,119 in 2023.

The Times states: “There are several reasons for arrests not resulting in sentencing, such as out-of-court resolutions. But the most common is ‘evidential difficulties’, specifically that the victim does not support taking further action.”

But the police might get it wrong!

At the point at which a police arrest is made, there is still a way to go in terms of investigating whether a crime has been committed. The police are not the ones who make that decision. They arrest people who are suspected of committing a crime, gather the evidence and then present it to the CPS and later in Court.

So there will be cases where someone may be arrested and then later released with no charges - this isn’t the police “overstepping” or “getting it wrong” - this is them doing their job.

As a spokeswoman for Leicestershire police said:

“Crimes under Section 127 and Section 1 include any form of communication such as phone calls, letters, emails, and hoax calls to emergency services. They may also be serious domestic abuse-related crimes. Our staff must assess all of the information to determine if the threshold to record a crime has been met. Where a malicious communications offence is believed to have taken place, appropriate action will be taken. Our staff must consider whether the communication may be an expression which would be considered to be freedom of speech. While it may be unacceptable to be rude or offensive it is not unlawful — unless the communication is ‘grossly offensive’. Freedom of speech is enshrined within our society, and while communications may be rude, impolite or offensive, they may not be unlawful. Decisions are made taking this into consideration and if found not to be unlawful, will not be recorded as a crime.”

So, is it thought policing?

No - these ‘33 daily arrests’ can be for anything from sending threatening emails to an MP to making false bomb threats. From harassing an ex-girlfriend with nuisance calls and veiled threats, to spreading rumours about someone in your community being a paedophile.

People are not being arrested, let alone charged, for stating their political opinions on Facebook. As yet, I’ve not come across a single “thought police” story that has turned out to be true.

No one has been arrested for “silent prayer” - they were arrested for breaking an injunction put in place to stop them from harassing women attending an abortion clinic.

No one was arrested for criticising their local councillor on Facebook - they were visited by the police following an accusation of harassment made by the councillor’s partner after years of personal animosity between the 2 of them

No one was arrested for “hurty words” during the riots last summer - they were arrested (and in some cases charged) for inciting violence. Something which has always been an offence.

Why it matters

Freedom of expression is under threat all around the world, ironically, particularly in Trump’s USA, with law firms being targeted for having represented people who opposed Trump, Media outlets shut down for being “anti-Trump”, and withholding funding from Universities who won’t comply with his demands.

But in the UK, our rights to Freedom of Expression are very much protected by the ECHR, and these are at the forefront of any decisions around prosecutions under Communications offences.

So when you see claims like this, please always examine them with a huge dose of scepticism, because in my experience, they are never what they seem from the headlines.

In this instance, the data does not support the idea that more people are being “locked up” for what they say online.

While the headline figure is a legitimate number, it does NOT represent what the headline is suggesting.

The ability to voice your own opinion is incredibly important. But these sorts of headlines and statements about “thought police” are in themselves a form of soft-censorship. People who believe them may be less likely to express their views and opinions online.

And we need to be able to use our voices to call out injustices as we see them.

One final thought - Freedom of expression does not mean freedom from consequences. Someone is free to post a racist rant on their Facebook page, but those in their lives and those who read it are just as free to choose not to employ them or invite them to parties!

Thank you to everyone who subscribes to my newsletter, especially those who have chosen to upgrade to a paid subscription! It really helps in supporting me to keep calling out the misinformation and highlighting the realities in a world where that’s becoming more important than ever.

Your coffee donations are also wonderful in keeping me fuelled and alert! If you’d like to support me that way, you can do that here 👉🏼☕️!

Photo by Jessica Lewis 🦋 thepaintedsquare on Unsplash