On June 3, Georgian Dream MP Nino Tsilosani wrote that in the United Kingdom, more than a thousand people are arrested each month due to social media posts. Tsilosani cited this example in the context of the “uproar over media regulation” in Georgia. Her post was later circulated by media outlets including Imedi, Rustavi 2, Radio Imedi, and the news agency INFO 9.
The statistics on arrests in the UK related to social media posts are real but are being shared without context. The laws under which people are arrested also apply to “harmful communication,” which includes incitement to terrorism and violence. The law also covers online threats and abuse, including unwanted communication via email and other means. Accordingly, these crimes are also included in the statistics. Additionally, police are obligated to launch an investigation upon receiving a report of a violation. However, the statistics also show that despite the high number of arrests, the number of people who are actually prosecuted or imprisoned is low. For example, in 2024, only 137 people were sentenced to immediate imprisonment under these provisions. Nonetheless, there is criticism in the UK that the law in question may constitute a restriction on freedom of expression.
-
Which laws relate to social media activity?
In the United Kingdom, social media activity is addressed under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. According to this law, it is considered an offense to send messages that are offensive, indecent, obscene, or menacing using public electronic communications networks. The law also punishes the deliberate dissemination of false information intended to cause annoyance or anxiety. These offenses may result in a fine or imprisonment of up to six months. Additionally, the UK also relies on the 1988 Malicious Communications Act. Under this law, individuals can be fined or imprisoned for up to two years. It is important to note that these laws do not apply solely to social media activity but also cover unwanted communication through other means such as email.
For example, after a knife attack in the town of Southport, England, which claimed the lives of three young girls, British police arrested several individuals over social media posts. One such case involved a 55-year-old woman who was detained for spreading false information online about the identity of the attacker. According to the police, the information she shared was intended to stir up racial hatred. The spread of misinformation on social media following the attack led to unrest on the streets nationwide. In addition, two men were sentenced to prison for inciting violence. One of them, for instance, called for the mass deportation of migrants and urged people via social media to set fire to a hotel housing asylum seekers. In the case of the murders and injuries of the children, British teenager Alex Rudakubana was arrested and, in 2025, was sentenced to a minimum of 52 years in prison.
Although some imprisonment cases (as opposed to arrests) resemble the examples given above, concerns still remain that the UK law may pose risks to freedom of expression. Considering that an average of 30 people are arrested each day, prominent publications continue to criticize the UK’s legal approach, arguing that with such strict regulation of online harm, freedom of expression becomes a secondary issue and is even sacrificed.
-
What does the data show about arrests in the UK?
In recent years, the number of people arrested in the UK for sending or posting offensive messages on social media that caused annoyance, discomfort, or anxiety has been increasing. According to data from The Times, the figures for England and Wales are as follows:
In 2023, officers from 35 police departments arrested 12,183 people, that is, an average of approximately 33 people per day. Compared to the pre-pandemic period, this statistic represents an almost 58% increase.
However, when discussing this issue, it’s important to consider how many of these arrests resulted in convictions and how many of those convicted were actually sentenced to imprisonment. The statistics show that despite the rise in arrests, these figures are declining. In 2023, convictions under Section 127 of the Communications Act and similar provisions were handed down to 1,119 individuals – a sharp drop from 2015, when 1,995 people were found guilty. This decline is most likely due to difficulties in gathering sufficient evidence.
In 2024, 1,160 people were prosecuted for malicious communications, but only 137 of them received immediate custodial sentences, and the majority of those prison terms were less than two months long.
The above chart from The Times shows percentage changes in arrests, prosecutions, and imprisonments for offenses under the 2003 Communications Act and Section 1 since 2017. Since that year, arrests have increased by 121%, while prosecutions have decreased by 12% and imprisonments have dropped by 13%.
According to the statistics, when it comes to malicious communications, suspects are relatively easy to identify, but they are rarely prosecuted or imprisoned. The Times compares this to other types of crimes, where police often struggle to identify suspects at all.
In cases involving violations of malicious communications laws, only about 2.5% of suspects are held accountable. The figure is low due to the fact that some cases are considered too minor, while others have evidentiary problems. In addition, in a number of cases, the victims do not wish to pursue legal action against the suspects. At the same time, police are obligated to investigate every social media post that is reported, and the number of such reports doubled in five years, between 2017 and 2022.
-
Nino Tsilosani’s Comparison
Nino Tsilosani compared the arrests of citizens in the UK to the “uproar over media regulation” in Georgia. The context involves complaints filed by the ruling party, Georgian Dream, against critical media outlets.
The Georgian Dream submitted complaints to the Communications Commission against three TV channels: TV Pirveli, Mtavari Arkhi, and Formula. The complaints concern the language used during coverage of events – both in broadcasting and in the dissemination of news on social media. The Georgian Dream claims that the terms used amount to personal judgments and accusations rather than objective reporting and that they fail to distinguish between facts and opinions. The party is demanding “appropriate sanctions” against the media.
The Georgian Dream cited phrases such as “regime,” “prisoners of the regime,” “the oligarch’s regime,” “Georgian Dream’s Ministry of Internal Affairs,” “the so-called investigative commission of the so-called parliament,” “illegitimate government,” etc., as examples of such terms.
The Media Advocacy Coalition responded to the complaint, issuing a statement warning of a systematic attack on independent media in Georgia.
“The legal repression – repressive legislation recently initiated and adopted by the Georgian Dream – is intentionally designed to restrict freedom of expression and limit public access to alternative viewpoints and information. On June 2, it became known that the Georgian Dream had filed a complaint with the Communications Commission, demanding that TV Pirveli and Formula be recognized as offenders and sanctioned for using terms and language that the party finds objectionable.
These cases will be reviewed by the Communications Commission, whose chairman, sanctioned Kakha Bekauri, has already been listed in a European Parliament resolution recommending sanctions against individuals who support authoritarian regimes.”
