Social Media Posts: Penalties for Offences

Roger Gale Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 728715 relating to penalties for offences arising from social media posts.

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. As Chair of the Petitions Committee, let me say that it is always encouraging to witness public participation in politics. With more than 100,000 signatures, it is evident that this petition has engaged a large number of people all across the country.

This e-petition was created by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe). This is the first time that an elected Member of the House of Commons has the e-petition system in this way to garner enough support to secure a debate, making this a unique instance. He explained to me that he believes that this Government have taken a two-tier approach to policing, which needs to be urgently reviewed.

When I use the phrase “two-tier”, I am referring to the belief that police in this country are overtly lenient towards protestors in favour of progressive causes and racial minority protestors, compared with others. To put it simply, those who subscribe to this criticism of our justice system do not believe that citizens are being punished fairly or impartially. That is why the signatories of this petition believe the system needs to be reviewed. Specifically, they are calling on the Government to urgently review the possible penalties for non-violent offences arising from social media posts, including the use of prison. During our meeting, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth explained that it is his belief that, when it comes to punishing individuals for something they have posted on a social media platform, previous sentences issued for offences under this Government have risked encroaching on the individual liberty of the defendant, particularly their freedom of speech.

Freedom of expression has always been a cornerstone of our democracy. In the UK, people are free to demonstrate their views regardless of any discomfort caused to the majority. However, the freedom to express these opinions does exempt any criminal motivation behind them from being prosecuted. Just as we are a country that takes pride in our citizen’s liberties and freedoms, we also take pride in a criminal justice system that protects our citizens from harm. The former will never override the latter.

Under section 22 of the Online Safety Act 2023, a statutory duty to consider free expression protects the rights of users within the law. Crucially, the Act explicitly defines “freedom of expression” in terms compatible with the European convention on human rights. That is the right

“to receive and impart ideas, opinions or information…by means of speech, writing or images”.

However, section 59 of that same Act makes it clear that the boundary of that freedom extends only as far as the legality of the content. In other words, content is judged not just by whether it is unpopular, offensive or controversial but, crucially, whether it violates criminal law. Examples of such violations include—to name but a few—types of intimate image abuse, harassment or the incitement of hate crimes.

That brings us to the question of criminality and prosecution for such an offence, which I believe is the very crux of this petition. When I spoke to the Sentencing Council, it made it clear to me that intent matters a lot in many of these offences. The Sentencing Council’s definition of intent ranges from the highest culpability, for a deliberate intention to cause harm, to lower levels of culpability, for recklessness, knowledge of risk or sheer negligence.

The council considers an offender’s intent to be a key factor in determining the seriousness of an offence and the appropriate sentence, which will often be based on the level of harm that was intended even if it was not actually caused. In our modern age of social media, where communication is instant, rapid and far-reaching, the question of culpability, intent and widespread dissemination does indeed hold serious weight. It is reasonable to assume that all citizens realise that when using sites such as X, Instagram or Facebook.

When it comes to calling on the Government to review the penalties for non-violent offences arising from social media posts, it is imperative to clarify the particulars of existing sentencing guidelines. In the UK, the Government on their own cannot simply change criminal penalties, because the power to set or alter penalties is controlled by Parliament and the courts, not Ministers. Any change to maximum or minimum penalties for an offence must be made through primary legislation. That means that a new law or amendment must pass through the full parliamentary process: drafting, scrutiny, debate and, of course, approval by both Houses—the Commons and the Lords. The Government may propose changes, but they absolutely cannot impose them without Parliament voting them into law.

Even after Parliament sets the legal penalty ranges, the Government still cannot decide individual sentences, because those are often carried out independently by judges, who must follow the Sentencing Council’s guidelines and not—absolutely not—the preferences of Ministers. The Government also cannot order judges to give harsher or more lenient sentences in specific cases, because judicial independence, as we know, protects courts from political interference; indeed, I would suggest that it is a crucial pillar of our political and justice systems. Neither the courts nor Parliament stand alone; that ensures that balanced decisions are made independently in the public interest.

All of that is seriously complex, and addresses a large scale of harm and, in some cases, prejudice. That is to say that I am absolutely certain my colleagues will debate this question with respect, rationality and indeed nuance this evening. I can see that lots of them hope to speak, so I will bring my remarks to a close to allow as many as possible to participate.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

There appear to be other attractions in the main Chamber today, and a number of Members who indicated that they wished to participate are not present. For that reason, I have no need, I think, to put any time limit on contributions.

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger.

The first duty of Government is to keep their citizens safe. We do that with the police and our court system; and, although they are not perfect, we could not do it without them. The online space is an integral part of our modern lives, and we need to treat it as such, because what happens online does not stay online.

Online safety naysayers want us to think that regulating the online space is a conspiracy to end freedom of speech. Some, such as the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), try to make that case, while his online followers send women and members of minorities death and rape threats when they speak freely, and that includes Members of this House—like many women MPs, I receive at least one a week.

Rather than taking away free speech and democracy, we are ensuring that everybody has a voice, so that people, including the alleged victims of Andrew and Tristan Tate, can one day have an online profile again, without getting their home addresses splashed all over the internet and being doxed, as young people like to call it.

Democracy should be about ideas and debates, yet the online environment that some Members of this House want is one where people can make deepfakes, misleading the electorate; where they can threaten women with rape, to shut up those they do not agree with; and where they can make £300,000 by making 128 Facebook pages, spreading racist and AI-generated misinformation, which is then amplified by members of the Reform party—monetising hate, as the piece in The Times exposed this morning. Without an extension of our election laws to online spaces, single platforms or platform owners with specific political or financial agendas can continue to spread lies and misinformation, even going so far as to incite violence in another country. That is not democracy; that is not free speech. It is up to this Government to ward against it and ensure that our laws and sentencing are appropriate. As I said, the first duty of any Government is to keep their citizens safe.

In real life, a 12-year-old cannot go to the cinema to see a film if it is rated 15, and pornography is put on the top shelf at the newsagents, out of reach. Kids cannot buy a video game that is adult-only rated without identification. Online, however, our kids can find any kind of graphic or sexual content, of any level of extremity, as easily as they can text their friends.

The Online Safety Act is there to protect everyone. It is there to put porn back on the top shelf and out of reach of kids. It works to prevent 10-year-olds from finding graphic depictions of violence, being encouraged to become violent themselves or being groomed by strangers. Those who want to scrap the Act and the sentencing that goes along with it actually put at risk our free speech—the free speech of those who are intimidated every day for trying to express their views online—and, even more so, they put at risk our democracy. Let us bring back common sense and protect this country.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

As the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) said, this is the first time that an e-petition debate has been instigated by a Member of this House, so it gives me great pleasure to call the culprit, Rupert Lowe.