Check your content against UK speech law frameworks

Home / Blog / A Content Creator Legal Checklist Before Hitting Publish

← Back to Blog

A Content Creator Legal Checklist Before Hitting Publish

Published 9 July 2026

You have written the post. The take is sharp. The language is punchy. Your finger hovers over "publish." Before you press it, run through five questions. They will not make you a lawyer. They will not guarantee you never face a claim. But they will help you spot the posts most likely to get you into legal trouble — and the ones that are probably fine.

This checklist covers the three criminal statutes most commonly used against online content, the civil law that costs content creators the most money, and the one offence that catches people who never saw it coming.

Disclaimer: General information, not legal advice. If you are unsure about specific content, run it through the UK Content Comply checker or speak to a solicitor.

Jurisdiction: England and Wales. Scotland and Northern Ireland have separate frameworks.

The Five-Question Pre-Publish Checklist 1 Could a reasonable person be OUTRAGED, SHOCKED, or DISGUSTED by this? If YES: s.127 Communications Act — grossly offensive — 6 months. Not just rude or controversial — genuinely shocking. 2 Is it TRUE? Can I PROVE it? Is it clearly OPINION? If you are stating facts that damage reputation: Defamation Act 2013 — civil, damages. Truth = complete defence. Opinion = s.3 defence. 3 Am I TARGETING a specific person with intent to cause DISTRESS? If YES: Malicious Communications Act 1988 — up to 2 years. Purpose to cause distress must be proved. 4 Does this relate to an ACTIVE COURT CASE? Would a juror see it? If YES: Contempt of Court Act 1981 — up to 2 years. Never name jurors. Never reveal restricted info. AG consent. 5 Does this threaten DEATH or SERIOUS HARM — even as a "joke"? If YES: s.181 OSA 2023 — up to 5 years. "I was joking" is not a defence if a reasonable person would fear it. If you answered NO to all five — publish. If YES to any — pause and reconsider. Also: POA ss.4-5 (street laws), PFHA (course of conduct), OSA s.183 (epilepsy trolling), s.184 (self-harm) — see resources
Five questions to ask before publishing. No to all five = publish. Yes to any = pause and reconsider.

Question 1: Could This Be Grossly Offensive?

Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 is the most commonly used statute for prosecuting online speech. It covers messages that are "grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character." The Collins test (DPP v Collins [2006] UKHL 40) asks: would this cause outrage, shock, or disgust to a reasonable person in an open and just multi-racial society? You do not need to have intended to cause distress — awareness of the message's character is enough. Maximum: 6 months' imprisonment.

Not everything offensive is criminal. The word "grossly" does real work: rude, insulting, controversial, or distasteful posts are not enough. The post must genuinely outrage, shock, or disgust a reasonable, tolerant observer. The Chambers v DPP [2012] principle applies: context determines whether a message crosses the line. Political speech, satire, and robust commentary get stronger protection.

Question 2: Is It True? Can I Prove It?

Defamation is civil, not criminal — you cannot be imprisoned for it. But you can be sued for damages. The Defamation Act 2013 requires the claimant to prove serious harm to reputation (Lachaux v Independent Print [2019] UKSC 27). If you are stating facts that could damage someone's reputation, ask: is it true? Truth is a complete defence (s.2). If it is opinion, is it based on facts that existed? Honest opinion is a defence (s.3). Is there a public interest in publishing? Public interest is a defence (s.4). Every retweet or share resets the one-year limitation period — you can be liable for republication.

Question 3: Am I Targeting Someone?

The Malicious Communications Act 1988 covers messages sent with the purpose of causing distress or anxiety. This is a higher bar than s.127 — the prosecution must prove you intended to cause distress, not just that you were aware the message was offensive. If you are directing abuse at a specific person, with the intention of upsetting them, the MCA applies. Maximum: 2 years on indictment. In Connolly v DPP [2007] EWHC 237 (Admin), the High Court confirmed the purpose element is genuinely narrow.

Risk Level Matrix: What Kind of Post Triggers What LOW RISK Opinion on matters of public interest Satire, criticism, debate MEDIUM RISK Abusive language with no target Factual claims about named individuals HIGH RISK Threats, targeted abuse Posts about active court cases Risk increases with: specific targeting + intent to harm + credible threats + active legal proceedings Also: hate speech (7yr), harassment (course of conduct), epilepsy trolling (5yr), encouraging self-harm (5yr) — see resources
Risk increases with targeting, intent, and the specific content of the message.

Question 4: Does It Relate to a Court Case?

The Contempt of Court Act 1981 catches publishers who never saw it coming. If you post anything that creates a substantial risk of serious prejudice to active legal proceedings — naming a juror, revealing restricted information, commenting on a defendant's guilt before verdict — you can be prosecuted. Attorney General consent is required. Maximum: 2 years. The well-documented cases of jurors posting about trials on social media demonstrate this is actively enforced. If a case is before the courts, the safest rule is: do not post about it at all unless you are certain your post creates no risk of prejudice.

Question 5: Is This a Threat — Even as a "Joke"?

Section 181 of the Online Safety Act 2023 covers threats of death or serious harm, sent with intent to cause fear or recklessness as to whether fear results. "I was only joking" is not a defence if a reasonable person would have feared the threat. The Chambers principle applies: context determines whether a reasonable person would treat the message as a genuine threat. But the stakes are higher — 5 years' imprisonment on indictment. If your post could be read as a credible threat of death or serious harm, even if you meant it as hyperbole, pause.

If Police Contact You: What to Do Say nothing Beyond confirming your identity Get a solicitor Before answering any questions Do not delete the post Deletion can be obstruction The charge determines everything — do not assume it is "just s.127" UK Content Comply analyses content against 13 UK speech law frameworks. Use the checker before publishing. Sources: CPS Social Media Guidelines; DPP v Collins; Chambers v DPP; Defamation Act 2013; OSA 2023
If the police make contact: say nothing, get a solicitor, do not delete the post.

Sources