Hundreds of people have been prosecuted for online “speech crimes” under the Online Safety Act, amid growing concerns over its implications for free expression in Britain.
Since the Act came into force in October 2023, nearly 300 people have been charged with offences including spreading “illegal fake news” and sending “threatening communications.” Dozens have already been convicted under the new law.
Among those charged were several individuals prosecuted in the wake of last summer’s rioting following the Southport stabbings. They are believed to be among the first convictions under the legislation.
Data from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), obtained by The Telegraph under a Freedom of Information request, reveals that 292 people have been charged with communications offences under the new regime.
This includes 23 prosecutions for sending a “false communication” and hundreds more for sending a “threatening communication.” So far, 67 people have been convicted under the Act’s provisions.
Passed under Rishi Sunak’s Conservative government, the Online Safety Act was designed to compel technology companies to remove harmful online content or face multi-billion-pound fines. But alongside its regulation of social media platforms, the Act also created new criminal offences, including cyberflashing, the distribution of so-called “revenge porn”, and, more controversially, the criminalisation of “illegal false communications”, a provision widely referred to as a “fake news” offence.
Under Section 179 of the Act, it is now a criminal offence to knowingly send false information with the intent to cause “non-trivial psychological or physical harm” to a likely audience.
However, free speech advocates warn that this provision dramatically expands the scope of ‘speech crimes’ in the UK by empowering the state to police truth.
Lord Young, the Conservative peer and founder of the Free Speech Union, described the number of charges under the new law as “deeply concerning”, arguing that criminalising disinformation hands the government the power to determine what is and isn’t true.
He added that the false communications offence was one of a growing number of legal provisions criminalising speech. “Causing someone psychological distress should not be a criminal offence,” he said.
Lord Young’s concerns were echoed by legal experts, who have questioned the ambiguity of the offence and the difficulty of proving intent.
David Hardstaff, a serious crime expert at BCL Solicitors, said: “The fake news offence is problematic both for its potential to stifle free speech if misused, but equally for its lack of clarity and consistency.”
He added: “Prosecutors face an uphill battle in proving that a defendant ‘knows’ information to be false, and also in proving ‘non-trivial psychological or physical harm to a likely audience’.”
The offence replaces a lesser-known provision in the Communications Act 2003, Section 127(2), which criminalised “false messages” that caused “needless anxiety”. Unlike its predecessor, however, the new offence carries a potential prison sentence of up to 51 weeks, a fine, or both – a significant increase on the previous six-month maximum sentence.
The first major wave of prosecutions under the Act followed the riots in Southport last summer, which were fuelled by online speculation about the identity of the attacker.
Several individuals were questioned under the false communications offence for spreading claims that the perpetrator was a Muslim immigrant.
In one high-profile case, Dimitrie Stoica was jailed for three months for falsely claiming in a TikTok livestream that he was “running for his life” from rioters in Derby. Stoica, who had 700 followers, later admitted his claim was a joke, but was convicted under the Act and fined £154.
The Act has also drawn international scrutiny, with the US urging Britain to scale back its online safety regime amid concerns that it restricts freedom of expression on American-owned platforms.
Donald Trump, JD Vance, and Elon Musk have all criticised what they see as state-imposed censorship in Britain and Europe, arguing that laws such as the Online Safety Act create significant compliance burdens on social media companies and stifle legitimate speech.
Speaking at a security conference in Munich on Friday, Senator JD Vance warned that free speech in Britain was “in retreat”.
“I look to our very dear friends in the United Kingdom, where the backslide away from conscience rights has placed the basic liberties of religious Britons, in particular, in the crosshairs,” he said.
Sources close to the White House told The Telegraph last week that UK online safety laws were viewed as “Orwellian” in Washington and that the issue was likely to feature in future trade and tariff negotiations.
Technology companies have also voiced concerns about the broad and subjective nature of the false communications offence.
In a submission to media regulator Ofcom, Elon Musk’s X pointed out that “false communications” could apply to “many different types of communication on platforms”. The company went on to warn that the draft regulatory framework now under construction risked leading to over-enforcements and a “stymieing [of] freedom of expression”.
Defending the Act, a government spokesman said it was designed to protect the public from harm, rather than limit free expression.
“We will not let the internet serve as a haven for those seeking to sow division and harm in our communities. That is why we are taking decisive action through the Online Safety Act, ensuring that social media platforms remove illegal content and prevent the spread of illegal disinformation,” they said.
“The false communications offence, introduced in January 2024, reinforces this approach by targeting those who knowingly spread false information with intent to cause significant harm, without reasonable excuse.
“We will not stand by while online activity fuels real-world harm, and we remain committed to protecting the public from such threats.”
There’s more on this story here.
