Censorship, Blasphemy and Section 127: Where Does Free Speech End Online?

Written by Editor

Disclaimer: This article is for general information and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Communications, public-order, hate-speech and defamation laws are complex and highly dependent on context, intention and the precise words or images used. The discussion below relates principally to the law of England and Wales and is correct to the best of our knowledge as of August 2026. Anyone facing police investigation, arrest, prosecution or threatened legal proceedings should seek advice from a suitably qualified legal professional.

When Does Freedom of Speech Become a Criminal Communication?

Freedom of expression is one of the foundations of a democratic society. People must be able to criticise politicians, governments, religions, institutions, corporations and prevailing social opinions without fearing prosecution simply because somebody dislikes what they have said.

However, freedom of speech in the United Kingdom is not absolute.

The growth of social media has also blurred the distinction between having an opinion and legally “publishing” that opinion. Something said privately in a room may reach only a few people. A Facebook post, repost, tweet, share, meme or video can potentially reach thousands or millions within minutes.

One law increasingly discussed in debates about online censorship is Section 127(1)(a) of the Communications Act 2003.

Under Section 127, an offence may be committed where somebody sends, or causes to be sent, through a public electronic communications network a communication that is grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or menacing. The internet, mobile-phone networks and social-media services can fall within the legislation.

In layman’s terms, this means that pressing “post” or “share” can potentially have legal consequences.

But that does not mean that everything offensive is illegal.

What Does “Grossly Offensive” Actually Mean?

This is where much of the controversy begins.

The Communications Act does not provide a neat dictionary definition of “grossly offensive”. Instead, courts examine the words, images and surrounding circumstances.

Importantly, CPS guidance acknowledges that there is a high threshold. Case law has established that something being in bad taste, even shockingly bad taste, is not automatically enough to make it criminally grossly offensive.

Prosecutors are specifically instructed to consider whether a communication amounts to nothing more than something offensive, shocking or disturbing; satire; rude or iconoclastic commentary; an unpopular opinion; banter; humour; or an ill-thought-out contribution to a conversation. These types of expression can still receive protection under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

That distinction matters enormously.

If everything capable of offending somebody became criminal, meaningful freedom of expression would effectively cease to exist.

What Can You Say Online?

Generally speaking, people remain entitled to express strong opinions, including opinions others may regard as unpleasant.

For example, you may generally criticise government policy, say that a political party has failed the country, argue that a law is unjust, criticise the NHS, police, local authorities or other public bodies, disagree with a religion, question religious teachings, challenge political ideology, publish satire, express an unpopular political opinion or disagree strongly with a public figure.

The CPS itself recognises that there must be a particularly high threshold before criminalising communications made during robust political debate.

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas. CPS guidance expressly recognises that this protection extends to speech capable of offending, shocking or disturbing others.

Therefore, writing:

“I believe this Government’s policy is unfair, and harmful to disabled people” would ordinarily amount to political criticism.

It does not become a criminal offence simply because the Government, a politician or their supporters dislike the criticism.

There is a substantial difference, however, between criticising someone’s policies and threatening that person, persistently harassing them or knowingly publishing damaging false factual allegations.

What Can Get You Into Trouble?

Freedom of expression does not provide immunity from every other law.

There are several areas where online speech becomes significantly more legally risky:

Grossly offensive communications: Material may potentially cross the Section 127 threshold where, considering its meaning and context, it goes substantially beyond merely offensive, shocking, satirical or rude expression.
Menacing communications: Genuine or apparently credible threats can result in criminal proceedings. The Online Safety Act 2023 also created a separate threatening-communications offence concerning threats of death or serious harm.
Harassment: Repeatedly targeting somebody with messages, abuse or unwanted contact can potentially engage harassment legislation even where an isolated comment might have been lawful.
Incitement or encouragement of crime: Freedom of speech does not provide a general defence for deliberately encouraging criminal conduct.
Stirring up hatred: There are criminal offences concerning racial and religious hatred, although the legal tests are considerably more specific than simply saying something offensive about a religion or group.
Defamation: Publishing a serious false factual allegation that damages the reputation of an identifiable person can result in a civil claim. Writing “I dislike this politician” is very different from stating as fact that a named politician has committed a crime without evidence.
Contempt of court and reporting restrictions: Posting material about ongoing criminal proceedings can create separate legal problems, particularly where it risks prejudicing a trial or identifies somebody whose identity is legally protected.

The safest distinction to remember is that opinion, criticism and disagreement are not the same thing as threats, harassment or knowingly false factual allegations.

What About Criticising Religion?

This question is particularly important in light of the current debate around so-called “blasphemy laws”.

England and Wales do not have the old common-law criminal offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel. Parliament abolished them through Section 79 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.

There is also an extremely important provision within the Public Order Act 1986.

Section 29J protects freedom of expression in relation to religion and makes clear that religious-hatred legislation should not be interpreted as prohibiting or restricting discussion or criticism of religions, including expressions of dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse concerning religions or the beliefs and practices of their followers.

In other words, religious beliefs themselves are not legally immune from criticism.

There is an important distinction between saying:

“I strongly disagree with this religious doctrine and believe it should be criticised” and deliberately threatening or targeting individual believers.

People have rights.

Ideas, political ideologies and religious doctrines must remain open to scrutiny and debate.

Has a “Blasphemy Law” Returned Through the Back Door?

That question has become particularly controversial following the case of retired police officer Stephen Gray.

GB News reported in August 2026 on the case under the headline concerning an ex-policeman warning of a “blasphemy law” returning after his conviction for sharing an offensive online post. It reported that hundreds of others had apparently shared the same material.

Gray, a retired police officer, was convicted at Newton Aycliffe Magistrates’ Court on 30 April 2026 after reposting material on Facebook which the court determined was grossly offensive under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003.

The disputed post was a satirical joke relating to Islam and the historical marriage of the Prophet Muhammad and Aisha. Gray told the court that his purpose was to prompt discussion about child marriage. District Judge Steven Hood found that the post was grossly offensive and rejected the argument that its presentation amounted to serious political discussion. The judge also concluded that conviction did not constitute a disproportionate interference with Gray’s freedom of expression.

Gray disputes that conclusion.

The Free Speech Union is supporting an appeal to the Crown Court and argues that prosecutions of this nature risk creating what it describes as a “blasphemy law by the back door“. As of August 2026, the appeal means the legal controversy surrounding the case is not finished.

It is therefore important when reporting the case not to present the Free Speech Union’s description as an established legal fact.

There is no statutory blasphemy offence in England and Wales.

The argument instead concerns whether other criminal laws are being interpreted or enforced in a manner that indirectly restricts criticism of religion.

That is a legitimate and important freedom-of-expression debate.

“Hundreds Shared It, Why Was One Person Prosecuted?”

This is another uncomfortable question raised by the Gray case.

If hundreds of people genuinely shared identical material yet only one person was prosecuted, members of the public may understandably question consistency and proportionality.

However, another person’s failure to be prosecuted does not automatically create a legal defence.

Police and prosecutors may have different evidence concerning different individuals. Complaints may have been made about one account but not another. Identity may be easier to establish in one case. Context, previous communications and the individual’s knowledge or intentions may differ.

Nevertheless, selective or apparently inconsistent enforcement can legitimately fuel public debate about equality before the law and whether communications legislation is being applied predictably.

The answer should ultimately be clearer law and consistent enforcement, rather than leaving ordinary social-media users guessing where the criminal boundary lies.

Can You Be Prosecuted Simply for Sharing Somebody Else’s Post?

Potentially, yes.

One of the biggest misconceptions about social media is:

“I didn’t write it, I only shared it.”

That is not necessarily a defence.

CPS guidance on Section 127 confirms that reposting or otherwise sharing a communication can amount to sending the communication for the purposes of the legislation.

The Online Safety Act 2023 goes even further in expressly recognising that “sending” material can include forwarding another person’s message or sharing somebody else’s post.

This means that before sharing controversial material, people should ask themselves not only:

“Did I write this?”

but:

“Am I prepared to take responsibility for distributing it?”

A social-media share is not legally invisible.

What If the Post You Share Turns Out to Be Untrue?

Being wrong is not automatically a criminal offence.

This is an extremely important distinction.

For communications sent from 31 January 2024 onwards, false communications are principally dealt with by Section 179 of the Online Safety Act 2023 rather than the former false-message provisions of Section 127.

Under Section 179, the prosecution must establish several elements. The sender must convey information that they know to be false, intend the message or information to cause non-trivial psychological or physical harm to a likely audience, and have no reasonable excuse for sending it.

Therefore:

Sharing something that subsequently proves inaccurate is not automatically criminal.

Mistakenly believing something is true is not the same as knowing it is false.

Expressing an opinion is also fundamentally different from presenting a supposedly verifiable fact.

If somebody invents an accusation while knowing it is false and deliberately circulates it to cause harm, several areas of law could potentially become relevant.

There can also be civil consequences, particularly defamation, even where criminal prosecution is inappropriate.

For website owners, journalists, bloggers and social-media users, checking serious allegations before republishing them is therefore extremely important.

Can Criticising the Government Get You Into Hot Water?

Criticising the Government itself is not a criminal offence.

That point deserves to be stated clearly.

A functioning democracy depends upon citizens being able to criticise government policy, ministers, Parliament, police forces, councils and other powerful institutions.

The CPS itself warns that the criminal threshold must remain high where communications arise from robust political debate.

However, criticising government can sometimes feel as though it gets people into hot water because political posts are public, controversial and frequently reported.

The important question is why somebody is being investigated.

The law should therefore punish unlawful conduct, not political disagreement.

Censorship Versus Legitimate Regulation

“Censorship” is an emotionally charged word.

There are circumstances where restrictions on speech are widely accepted as legitimate: genuine threats, stalking, targeted harassment, incitement to violence, serious invasions of privacy and certain forms of hate crime are obvious examples.

The greater difficulty lies in legislation using subjective expressions such as “grossly offensive”.

What is offensive to one person may be satire to another.

Religious criticism may deeply offend believers while simultaneously representing legitimate philosophical or political discussion.

Political criticism may anger elected representatives but still lie at the heart of democratic accountability.

This is why Article 10 matters.

The CPS states that prosecution for communications offences should proceed only where interference with freedom of expression is necessary and proportionate, with particular care required before imposing criminal sanctions for expression on social media.

Without that safeguard, the fear of investigation itself risks creating a chilling effect, where people self-censor not because their speech is unlawful but because they are frightened that somebody might decide it is offensive.

The Difference Between Being Offended and Being Harmed

Modern society faces a difficult balance.

People deserve protection from credible threats, harassment and deliberately targeted abuse.

But there is no general legal right to go through life without hearing opinions, jokes, political arguments or religious criticism that one finds offensive.

If society begins equating offence with harm, freedom of expression becomes increasingly fragile.

A democracy must leave space for uncomfortable conversations.

People should be able to challenge Christianity.

People should be able to challenge Islam.

People should be able to challenge Judaism, Hinduism, atheism and every other religious or philosophical belief.

Likewise, citizens should be able to challenge Labour, Conservative, Reform UK, Liberal Democrat, Green or any other political movement.

Protecting people from hatred does not require protecting ideas from criticism.

Think Before You Share

One lesson arising from Section 127 and the Online Safety Act is that people should stop thinking of the share button as legally meaningless.

Before sharing controversial content, consider whether it contains factual allegations you have verified, whether it targets an identifiable individual, whether it contains threats, whether you know information within it to be false, whether your accompanying words change its meaning and whether you are genuinely comfortable putting your name behind what you are distributing.

That does not mean people should become frightened of expressing themselves.

It means understanding that publishing and republishing carry responsibility.

Conclusion: Free Speech Must Include the Right to Offend

Section 127(1)(a) of the Communications Act 2003 has an understandable purpose. Society needs mechanisms for dealing with genuinely menacing, obscene and seriously abusive communications.

The controversy arises when the legislation encounters satire, religion, politics and unpopular opinions.

England and Wales abolished blasphemy offences in 2008. Parliament has expressly protected criticism and even ridicule of religion within religious-hatred legislation. Article 10 protects freedom of expression, and CPS guidance acknowledges that speech does not lose protection simply because it shocks, disturbs or offends.

The Stephen Gray case therefore raises questions extending considerably beyond one Facebook post.

Where should society draw the line between protecting people from genuinely unlawful communications and protecting people from merely being offended?

And perhaps even more importantly:

If ordinary citizens cannot reasonably predict where that line lies, does the uncertainty itself begin to suppress lawful speech?

Freedom of expression does not mean freedom from consequences, nor does it provide immunity for threats, harassment or deliberate harmful falsehoods.

But freedom of expression that protects only polite, popular and government-approved opinions would hardly be freedom of expression at all.