By Kieron JH 10 October 2025
Jurisdiction: England and Wales – This article explains existing UK law for educational purposes. It promotes lawful expression and public understanding of legal boundaries, not personal opinion about any case or group.
People are increasingly afraid to speak online. They should not be. In UK law you can criticise ideas, including religion, and you can do it bluntly. What you cannot do is threaten people or encourage others to harm them. Ideas can be challenged. People must be protected from threats and targeted violence.
Protected Speech: The Right to Criticise Beliefs
Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 protects freedom of expression, including opinions that offend, shock, or disturb. The Public Order Act 1986 section 29J makes that protection explicit for religion: discussion, criticism, or even ridicule of belief systems is lawful. The law defends your right to challenge ideas, not your right to threaten people who hold them.
Criminal Speech: When Words Become Threats
Under Part 3A of the Public Order Act 1986, offences of stirring up religious hatred (sections 29B–29G) require threatening words or material and an intent to stir up hatred. Abusive or insulting is not enough. Every prosecution must be approved by the Attorney General (section 29L). The bar is intentionally high to protect open debate.
Encouraging Violence or Crime
The Serious Crime Act 2007 makes it an offence to encourage or assist crime (sections 44–46). Using social media to recruit or rally others to attack a place or group can be charged under these provisions, even if you never leave your house.
Modern Online Offences
The Online Safety Act 2023 added new crimes: false communications and threatening communications. They took effect on 31 January 2024 (SI 2024/31), explained in the Home Office circular. False claims that fuel hatred or threats can now be prosecuted directly.
Southport: The Real-World Example
After the 2024 Southport attack, misinformation spread fast and protests turned violent. Many arrests and convictions followed, mainly for posts that urged violence or organised attacks. The message is simple: criticism of beliefs was lawful, calls for harm were not.
How to Keep Your Speech Lawful
- Aim at ideas, not people. Challenge doctrines, institutions, leaders in public roles, or outcomes. Never target a faith group as people. See section 29J.
- Avoid threats or calls to harm. Anything that could be read as a call to attack a person or place risks breaching the Public Order Act, the Serious Crime Act 2007, or the Online Safety Act 2023.
- Be careful in volatile moments. During disorder, courts view speech that fuels tension as more serious.
- Do not recruit. Organising others for public disorder can trigger sections 44–46 SCA 2007.
- Separate fact from opinion. Mark opinion clearly and avoid spreading false claims that could inflame hostility (section 179 OSA 2023).
Pointing Out Hypocrisy Is Lawful
UK law allows you to highlight when someone’s actions contradict the values they promote in public. That is criticism of behaviour, not of their religion. Saying a person’s behaviour was “not very Christian” is a lawful value judgment about conduct, not an attack on faith. Keep it specific, evidence-based, and free of personal abuse.
Safe Language vs Criminal Language
Lawful examples
- “I believe this doctrine causes harm because…”
- “This organisation’s policy conflicts with its stated values.”
- “This law should change for reasons A, B and C.”
Criminal examples
- “Attack that mosque tonight.”
- “They deserve violence, do it.”
- Posting addresses or urging others to gather for confrontation.
Other Laws That Interlock
- Racially or religiously aggravated offences: Crime and Disorder Act 1998 Part II, sections 28–32.
- Stirring up hatred: Public Order Act 1986 Part 3 (racial) and Part 3A (religious), requiring Attorney General consent (s 27, s 29L).
- Sentencing aggravation: Sentencing Act 2020 section 66 lets judges increase penalties where hostility is proven.
Free Speech Disclaimers and the Law
Some creators have begun posting so-called “free speech disclaimers” before sharing opinions online, hoping to protect themselves under the Online Safety Act 2023 section 179. The legal reality is simpler: a disclaimer does not prevent prosecution if a post itself breaches the law. What matters is the content, not the preface.
The Art of Law channel recently explained this point clearly – intent in UK law is about what a reasonable person could foresee as a result of your words, not what you claim you meant. Adding “I don’t intend harm” does not override that test.
At The Reasonable Adjustment, disclaimers are not shields. They are educational signposts, written to help readers understand their rights and responsibilities under UK law. I do not hide behind them, nor do I publish anything that falls outside the law. The aim is to inform, not to excuse.
In Short
You can criticise religion, government, and institutions robustly in the UK, so long as you stay within the law and avoid threats or incitement. The law draws a clear boundary between lawful debate and unlawful harm. Stay on the side of ideas, and your freedom stands firm.
Key Legal Sources
- Human Rights Act 1998 Article 10
- Public Order Act 1986 Part 3A (s 29B–29G, s 29J, s 29L)
- Public Order Act 1986 Part 3 (s 27)
- Crime and Disorder Act 1998 Part II (s 28–32)
- Serious Crime Act 2007 (s 44–46)
- Online Safety Act 2023 Part 10 (s 179, s 181) – commenced by SI 2024/31 and explained in the Home Office circular
- Sentencing Act 2020 section 66
This article is general information, not legal advice. If you face a real case, seek qualified legal guidance.
Be First to Comment