Online Safety Act 2023: Communications Offences

Communications Offences [Sections 179-191]

Rule: It is a criminal offence to send false communications with intent to harm, threatening communications, flashing images to epileptics, content encouraging serious self-harm, unsolicited intimate images (“cyberflashing”), or sharing intimate images without consent. Individual criminal liability (not provider liability).

Effective: January 31, 2024

Important: These are criminal offences for individuals (users), not provider duties. Platforms must facilitate law enforcement investigations.

---

Section 179: False Communications Offence

179.1 — The Offence

It is an offence to:

Send a message that conveys information the sender knows to be false, with intent to cause non-trivial psychological or physical harm to a likely audience.

All three elements required:

Element	Requirement
1. False information	Sender knows it’s false (not mistaken belief)
2. Intent to harm	Purpose is to cause harm (not just recklessness)
3. Non-trivial harm	More than minor distress or inconvenience

179.2 — What Is “False Information”?

“Knows to be false” means:

Scenario	Offence?
Deliberately lies (“I know this isn’t true but I’ll say it anyway”)	✅ YES
Honestly mistaken (“I thought this was true”)	❌ NO
Should have known better (“I didn’t check but probably false”)	❌ NO (knowledge required, not negligence)

Examples:

Message	False Information?
”Person X is a convicted pedophile” (sender knows X was never convicted)	✅ YES — knowingly false
”Person X is a pedophile” (based on rumor, sender genuinely believes)	❌ NO — honestly mistaken (but may be defamation)
“The vaccine contains microchips” (sender genuinely believes conspiracy theory)	❌ NO — no knowledge of falsity

179.3 — What Is “Intent to Cause Harm”?

Intent = purpose, not just foreseeability.

Scenario	Intent?
Primary purpose is to harm (“I want to destroy their reputation”)	✅ YES
Harm is side effect (“I want to make money, harm is incidental”)	❌ NO
Knows harm will result but doesn’t care (recklessness)	❌ NO (requires intent, not mere recklessness)

Example:

Person posts false claim “Restaurant X has rats” knowing it’s false.

• IF purpose is to harm restaurant (revenge, competition) → ✅ Offence
• IF purpose is to get clicks/ad revenue, knowing harm will occur → ❌ Not this offence (but may be other violations)

179.4 — What Is “Non-Trivial Harm”?

Harm to “likely audience”:

Harm Type	Non-Trivial?
Psychological harm	Serious emotional distress, anxiety, fear, humiliation
Physical harm	Injury, illness (including stress-induced physical symptoms)
Reputational harm	Loss of employment, relationships, social standing
Financial harm	Business losses, costs of addressing false claims

“Likely audience” includes:

• Original recipients
• People who see it after being shared/forwarded
• Anyone reasonably foreseeable to encounter it

Trivial harms (not covered):

Example	Why Trivial
Minor annoyance	”This made me slightly annoyed”
Fleeting distress	”I was upset for 5 minutes”
Inconvenience	”I had to spend 10 minutes correcting this”

Non-trivial harms:

Example	Why Non-Trivial
Severe emotional distress	”I developed anxiety disorder from harassment”
Reputational damage	”I lost my job due to false allegations”
Physical symptoms	”The stress caused me to be hospitalized”

179.5 — Penalties

Summary conviction:

• England/Wales: Up to 6 months imprisonment OR fine
• Northern Ireland: Up to 6 months imprisonment OR fine (level 5 standard scale)

Note: No indictment option — summary offence only.

Prosecution timeline:

• 6 months from evidence discovery
• Maximum 3 years after offence committed

179.6 — No “Reasonable Excuse” Defense

Unlike some offences, no defense of “reasonable excuse.”

This means:

• Can’t argue “I had good reason to lie”
• Can’t argue “Public interest in spreading this false info”

Only defenses:

• ❌ Didn’t know it was false
• ❌ Didn’t intend to cause harm
• ❌ Harm was trivial

---

Section 180: Exemptions for News Publishers

180.1 — Who Is Exempt?

The following are exempt from Section 179:

Entity	Why Exempt
Recognized news publishers	Professional journalism (editorial standards apply)
Broadcast license holders	TV/radio broadcasters (OFCOM regulated)
On-demand program providers	Streaming services with OFCOM oversight
Multiplex license holders	Digital broadcasting platforms
Cinema film showings	Theatrical releases

Purpose: Protect press freedom — journalists can report false claims (e.g., quoting someone’s false statement) without criminal liability.

180.2 — Conditions

Exemption only applies if:

• ✅ Content published in professional news context
• ✅ Editorial standards observed
• ✅ Not sent from individual’s personal account (must be organizational)

Example:

Scenario	Exempt?
BBC journalist tweets from @BBCNews about false claim politician made	✅ YES
Same journalist tweets from personal account	❌ NO
Citizen blogger (no professional affiliation)	❌ NO

---

Section 181: Threatening Communications Offence

181.1 — The Offence

It is an offence to:

Send a message conveying a threat of death or serious harm with intent or recklessness that recipients fear the threat will be carried out.

Key differences from Section 179:

Element	Section 179 (False Communications)	Section 181 (Threats)
Content	False information	Threat
Mental state	Intent	Intent OR recklessness
Harm	Any non-trivial harm	Death or specific serious harms

181.2 — What Is “Serious Harm”?

Four categories:

1. Death
2. Grievous bodily harm (serious physical injury)
3. Rape or sexual assault by penetration
4. Serious financial loss

Examples:

Threat	Serious Harm?
”I’m going to kill you”	✅ YES — death
”I’ll rape you”	✅ YES — rape
”I’ll break your legs”	✅ YES — grievous bodily harm
”I’ll punch you”	❌ NO — not grievous bodily harm
”I’ll bankrupt your business”	✅ YES — serious financial loss
”I’ll cost you £100”	❌ NO — not serious financial loss

181.3 — Intent or Recklessness

Two mental states sufficient:

Mental State	Meaning	Example
Intent	Sender wants recipient to fear threat	”I want them to be terrified”
Recklessness	Sender aware fear is likely but doesn’t care	”I know they’ll be scared but I don’t care”

Lower threshold than Section 179:

• Recklessness sufficient (not just intent)
• Easier to prove

181.4 — Fear of Carrying Out

Offence requires:

Recipient (or likely audience) fears threat will be carried out.

Test is objective:

Factor	Question
Recipient’s perspective	Would reasonable person fear threat?
Context	Sender’s history, relationship, capability
Specificity	Vague vs specific threat

Examples:

Threat	Reasonable Fear?
”I know where you live and I’m coming to kill you tonight”	✅ YES — specific, imminent
”Someone should kill you”	⚠️ DEPENDS — less direct
”I wish you were dead”	❌ NO — expression of desire, not threat

181.5 — Defense for Financial Loss Threats

Special defense for serious financial loss threats:

Defense if:

1. Threat was to reinforce a reasonable demand, AND
2. Sender reasonably believed the threat was proper reinforcement

Example:

Scenario	Defense Available?
”Pay me the £10k you owe me or I’ll sue and bankrupt you”	✅ YES — reasonable demand (debt), proper reinforcement (legal action)
“Give me £10k or I’ll destroy your business”	❌ NO — unreasonable demand (no basis), improper reinforcement (destruction)
“Pay child support or I’ll report you to authorities”	✅ YES — reasonable demand, proper reinforcement

181.6 — Penalties

Summary conviction:

• England/Wales: Magistrates’ court limit OR fine
• Northern Ireland: Up to 6 months imprisonment OR fine

Indictment:

• Up to 5 years imprisonment OR fine

Note: Indictable offence = more serious than Section 179.

---

Section 183: Flashing Images Offence (Epilepsy Trolling)

183.1 — The Offence

It is an offence to:

Option 1:

Send flashing images in electronic communication intending to harm epileptic individuals, knowing it’s reasonably foreseeable epileptics would view it.

Option 2:

Display flashing images directly to someone known/suspected to have epilepsy, intending harm.

183.2 — What Are “Flashing Images”?

Definition:

Images carrying seizure risk for photosensitive epilepsy sufferers.

Technical standard:

• Rapidly flashing lights (typically 3+ flashes per second)
• High contrast patterns (strobe effects)
• Moving geometric patterns

Common examples:

Source	Why Dangerous
GIFs with rapid flashing	Trigger photosensitive seizures
Strobe effect videos	High-frequency light pulses
Rapidly alternating colors	Contrast triggers seizures

183.3 — Intent to Harm

Offence requires:

• ✅ Sender knows images are flashing (seizure-inducing)
• ✅ Sender intends to cause harm to epileptics
• ✅ Reasonably foreseeable epileptics would view (for electronic communications)
• ✅ OR direct knowledge/suspicion recipient has epilepsy (for direct display)

Examples:

Scenario	Offence?
Sends flashing GIF to known epileptic saying “This is for you”	✅ YES — intent + knowledge
Posts flashing GIF publicly targeting epileptics	✅ YES — intent + foreseeable
Shares flashing GIF unaware of seizure risk	❌ NO — no intent
Creates art with flashing lights (no target)	❌ NO — no intent to harm epileptics

183.4 — Healthcare Professional Exemption

Exemption for:

Healthcare professionals acting in professional capacity.

Example:

• Doctor showing flashing images during epilepsy diagnosis (testing seizure triggers)

183.5 — Penalties

Same as Section 181:

• Summary conviction: Magistrates’ court limit OR fine (England/Wales); 6 months OR fine (Northern Ireland)
• Indictment: Up to 5 years imprisonment OR fine

---

Section 184: Encouraging/Assisting Serious Self-Harm

184.1 — The Offence

It is an offence to:

Do a relevant act capable of encouraging or assisting another’s serious self-harm with intent to encourage/assist.

Elements:

1. Relevant act — Communication, publication, or distribution
2. Capable of encouraging/assisting — Objectively could influence
3. Serious self-harm — Grievous bodily harm or severe injury
4. Intent — Purpose to encourage/assist

184.2 — What Is “Serious Self-Harm”?

Definition:

Jurisdiction	Standard
England/Wales/Northern Ireland	Grievous bodily harm
Scotland	Severe injury

Includes:

• ✅ Single act causing serious injury (e.g., severe cutting)
• ✅ Cumulative acts causing serious injury (e.g., prolonged self-starvation)

Examples:

Act	Serious Self-Harm?
Suicide	✅ YES
Severe cutting	✅ YES
Dangerous anorexia	✅ YES
Minor self-injury	❌ NO

184.3 — What Are “Relevant Acts”?

Four categories:

1. Communicating in person

   • Face-to-face conversations encouraging self-harm

2. Sending/publishing electronically

   • Social media posts, messages, emails promoting self-harm

3. Distributing physical material

   • Leaflets, books encouraging self-harm

4. Showing communications or providing data

   • Showing others’ self-harm content
   • Sharing files with self-harm instructions

Important:

• Forwarding/sharing others’ content counts — Don’t need to create original content
• Providing access counts — Giving someone a link to self-harm content

184.4 — “Capable” Standard

Offence if act is CAPABLE of encouraging/assisting, regardless of:

• ❌ Whether anyone actually self-harms
• ❌ Whether specific victim identified
• ❌ Whether content actually influences anyone

Example:

Person posts “10 ways to cut yourself effectively” on social media.

• ✅ Offence committed (capable of encouraging self-harm)
• ✅ Even if no one sees it or acts on it

184.5 — Intent Requirement

Must prove sender INTENDED to encourage/assist self-harm.

Scenario	Intent?
Posts self-harm methods to help others harm themselves	✅ YES
Shares personal self-harm story for awareness/prevention	❌ NO (different intent)
Creates suicide prevention content showing methods	❌ NO (intent is prevention, not encouragement)

184.6 — Exclusions

NOT an offence if:

• Sender acts under threat/coercion
• Content is for suicide prevention education
• Medical/mental health professional providing treatment

184.7 — Penalties

Summary conviction:

• England/Wales: Magistrates’ court limit OR fine
• Scotland: Up to 12 months imprisonment OR fine
• Northern Ireland: Up to 6 months imprisonment OR fine

Indictment:

• Up to 5 years imprisonment OR fine

---

Sections 187-188: Sexual Offences Amendments

Section 187: Sending Genital Images (“Cyberflashing”)

New Section 66A added to Sexual Offences Act 2003:

Offence:

Intentionally sending or giving genital photographs/films to another person:

• WITH intent to cause alarm/distress, OR
• FOR sexual gratification while reckless about distress caused

Two pathways:

Pathway	Mental State	Example
Pathway 1	Intent to alarm/distress	Sending unsolicited dick pics to harass
Pathway 2	Sexual gratification + recklessness	Sending for own pleasure, knowing recipient will be distressed

“Genital” includes:

• Penis, testicles
• Vulva
• Computer-generated/altered images appearing genuine

Penalties:

• Summary conviction: Magistrates’ court limit OR fine
• Indictment: Up to 2 years imprisonment

Section 188: Sharing Intimate Images Without Consent

New Section 66B added to Sexual Offences Act 2003:

Three sharing offences:

1. Section 66B(1): Sharing without consent

   • Share intimate image
   • No consent (and no reasonable belief in consent)

2. Section 66B(2): Intentional sharing for distress

   • Share intimate image
   • Intent to cause alarm/distress

3. Section 66B(3): Sharing for sexual gratification

   • Share intimate image
   • For sexual gratification
   • No consent

Threat offence (Section 66B(4)):

• Threaten to share intimate image
• Intent to cause fear threat will be executed

188.1 — What Is an “Intimate Image”?

Image showing person in “intimate state”:

Intimate State	Includes
Sexual activity	Engaged in sex act
Sexual act	Performing sexual act (masturbation, etc.)
Exposed genitals	Visible genitals/pubic area
Exposed buttocks	Visible buttocks
Exposed breasts (if person other than male)	Visible breasts/nipples
Urination/defecation	Visibly urinating or defecating
Associated personal care	Bathing, toileting

“Exposed” includes:

• ✅ Visible through wet/transparent clothing
• ✅ Visible through minimal covering
• ✅ Body parts “on display”

188.2 — What Is “Consent”?

Definition:

“General consent covering the particular act”

Assessment factors:

• Steps taken to verify consent — Did sender reasonably check?
• Scope of consent — Did consent cover THIS sharing? (e.g., consent to share with partner ≠ consent to share publicly)
• Timing — Was consent current? (consent 5 years ago may not apply now)

Examples:

Scenario	Consent?
Person explicitly says “You can share this photo on Instagram”	✅ YES — clear consent for that act
Person sends intimate photo to partner privately	❌ NO consent to share with others
Person posted intimate photo publicly 5 years ago, now wants it removed	⚠️ DEPENDS — original consent may not apply to continued sharing

188.3 — Exemptions (Section 66C)

No offence if image shows:

1. Public place with no privacy expectation

   • Beach nudity where accepted
   • Public streaker

2. Previously publicly shared with consent

   • Person already shared image publicly themselves
   • Consent to public sharing documented

3. Child under 16 lacking capacity, shared with healthcare professional

   • Medical context only
   • For care/treatment

4. Child in image, shared ordinarily among family/friends

   • Family photo albums
   • Normal family sharing

188.4 — Penalties

Section 66B(1) (sharing without consent):

• Summary conviction only: 6 months OR 51 weeks (depending on CJA 2003 commencement)

Sections 66B(2-4) (intent to distress, sexual gratification, threats):

• Summary conviction: Magistrates’ court limit OR fine
• Indictment: Up to 2 years imprisonment

---

Section 185: Extra-Territorial Application

185.1 — Offences Apply Outside UK

Sections 179, 181, 183 apply if:

• Perpetrator is individual habitually resident in England/Wales or Northern Ireland, OR
• Perpetrator is body incorporated under those jurisdictions’ law

Section 184 applies if:

• Perpetrator is individual habitually resident anywhere in UK, OR
• Perpetrator is body incorporated under any UK jurisdiction’s law

Practical effect:

Scenario	UK Law Applies?
UK citizen sends threatening message from Spain	✅ YES
US citizen sends false message to UK resident	❌ NO (unless some other jurisdiction)
UK company’s employee sends threat from abroad	✅ YES

---

Section 186: Corporate Liability

186.1 — Senior Manager Liability

If company commits offence, senior managers liable if:

• Offence committed with manager’s consent or connivance, OR
• Offence attributable to manager’s neglect

“Officer” includes:

Role	Covered?
Directors	✅ YES
Managers	✅ YES
Secretaries	✅ YES
Associates (partnerships)	✅ YES

Same principles as senior management liability in Section 133.

---

Sections 189-191: Repeals and Commencement

189.1 — Repealed Offences

The following are REPEALED (replaced by Part 10):

Old Offence	Replaced By
Communications Act: False messages	Section 179 (False communications)
Malicious Communications Act 1988	Section 181 (Threats)
Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015: Intimate photo disclosure	Section 188 (Intimate images)

189.2 — Commencement

All Part 10 offences commenced: January 31, 2024

---

Practical Application for AI Agents

Content Moderation Implications

While these are individual offences, platforms must:

1. Facilitate law enforcement investigations

   • Preserve evidence when requested
   • Comply with court orders
   • Report suspected offences (CSEA already mandatory)

2. Terms of service alignment

   • Prohibit content that violates Part 10 offences
   • Remove content when becomes aware of criminal violations

3. User education

   • Inform users of criminal liability for these acts
   • Warn before sharing potentially illegal content

Risk Flags for Content Moderation

Content likely to violate Part 10:

Content Type	Offence	Action
False claims with harassment intent	Section 179	Review for false communications offence
Explicit death threats	Section 181	Immediate removal + law enforcement referral
Flashing GIFs sent to epileptics	Section 183	Remove + report to police
Self-harm instructions	Section 184	Remove + suicide prevention resources
Unsolicited genital images	Section 187	Remove + warn sender of criminal liability
Revenge porn	Section 188	Remove + support victim + law enforcement referral

For AI-Generated Content

Special considerations:

AI Content	Criminal Liability?
AI generates false claim, user shares with intent to harm	✅ User liable (Section 179)
AI generates threat, user sends	✅ User liable (Section 181)
AI generates intimate images, user shares without subject’s consent	⚠️ COMPLEX (depends on “intimate state” definition for AI-generated)

---

Compliance Checklist

For platforms:

Content policies:

• Prohibit false communications with intent to harm
• Prohibit threats of death/serious harm
• Prohibit flashing images targeting epileptics
• Prohibit self-harm encouragement
• Prohibit unsolicited intimate images
• Prohibit non-consensual intimate image sharing

Law enforcement cooperation:

• Preserve evidence when requested
• Respond to court orders promptly
• Report CSEA (mandatory)
• Consider reporting other serious offences (discretionary)

User education:

• Terms clearly explain criminal liability
• Warning messages before posting potentially illegal content
• Resources for victims (reporting mechanisms, support services)

---

Key Takeaways

1. Individual criminal liability — These are offences for users, not provider duties
2. Knowledge/intent required — False communications require knowing falsity + intent to harm
3. Threats = lower bar — Recklessness sufficient for threats (not just intent)
4. Epilepsy trolling — Specific offence for weaponizing flashing images
5. Self-harm content — Criminal to encourage/assist serious self-harm
6. Cyberflashing — Unsolicited genital images now criminal
7. Revenge porn — Sharing intimate images without consent = criminal
8. News exemption — Professional journalists exempt from false communications offence
9. Extra-territorial — UK citizens/companies liable even for acts abroad
10. In force since January 2024 — All offences now prosecutable

---

Citation

Part 10 — Communications Offences, Online Safety Act 2023

Related:

• Sexual Offences Act 2003 (as amended)
• CPS Guidance on Communications Offences