Review possible penalties for social media posts, including the use of prison
191,591 people signed this petition to the UK Parliament after it opened on 20 June 2025; it closed on 20 December 2025. The Government responded on 25 July 2025. MPs debated it in Westminster Hall on 17 November 2025.
The petition
The petition's creator is not named in the Petitions site's published record. Quoted in full from the UK Parliament petitions site.
Review possible penalties for social media posts, including the use of prison
We call on the Government to urgently review the possible penalties for non-violent offences arising from social media posts, including the use of prison.
There is serious public concern about the proportionality of sentencing in cases involving opinion-based online speech. We believe imprisoning individuals for posts on social media sets a dangerous precedent and raises wider questions about freedom of expression, proportionality in sentencing, and the misuse of limited prison resources. We consider that alternative sanctions, such as fines or community service, would be more appropriate.
The Government's response
The Government published its response on 25 July 2025; the petitions site lists the Ministry of Justice as responsible. Its summary:
The government is committed to ensuring penalties are proportionate and uphold freedom of expression.
The opening 378 words of the 412-word response:
Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of our democratic society. It is a long-standing tradition in this country that people are free to demonstrate their views, however uncomfortable these may be to the majority. The government is committed to protecting this right while also ensuring that laws are in place to address harmful, criminal behaviour.
The UK’s Online Safety Act 2023 (“the Act”) reflects this careful balance. It requires platforms to take proportionate steps to tackle illegal content and protect children from harmful material. At the same time, it has been designed to safeguard legal free speech, uphold privacy, and support innovation. The Act does not prevent adults from accessing legal content, nor does it restrict people from posting content that others may find offensive. It is not about individual posts. Instead, Ofcom will assess the systems and processes platforms have in place to manage risks and respond to harm. There are also protections against the over-removal of content, ensuring that lawful speech is not wrongly taken down.
Where an individual is convicted for an offence related to opinion-based online speech, the independent judiciary are responsible for determining appropriate sentences based on the facts of each case and the relevant sentencing guidelines. The sentencing framework provides courts with a range of sentencing powers alongside imprisonment, including fines, community sentences, and suspended sentences. The law also makes clear that imprisonment should only be imposed where no other sentence would be appropriate.
The government commissioned a comprehensive review of sentencing powers through the Sentencing Review. This was a wide-ranging and evidence-led process that examined the full spectrum of sentencing options—from fines and community orders to custodial sentences—to ensure the framework is robust, proportionate, and fit for purpose.
The government has accepted the majority of the Review’s recommendations in principle and intends to legislate to implement them as soon as Parliamentary time allows. This includes targeted reforms to strengthen public protection and reduce reoffending.
We do not consider it necessary or appropriate to revisit the sentencing framework and we currently have no plans to review the penalties for these types of offences.
We are committed to ensuring that our justice system protects the public, upholds fundamental rights, and uses custodial sentences only where they are necessary and proportionate.
Ministry of Justice
Read the full response on the petitions site.
Where the signatures came from
Signatures came from 650 constituencies. Measured against each constituency's electorate at the 2024 general election, the most came from Great Yarmouth, with 14.6 signatures per 1,000 electors (1,074 in all).
188,761 of the signatures were from the UK and 2,830 from elsewhere, by the location signers gave.
| Constituency | Signatures | Electorate, July 2024 | Per 1,000 electors |
|---|---|---|---|
| Great Yarmouth | 1,074 | 73,317 | 14.6 |
| Llanelli | 520 | 71,538 | 7.3 |
| Jarrow and Gateshead East | 507 | 70,272 | 7.2 |
| Fylde | 546 | 77,100 | 7.1 |
| Rhondda and Ogmore | 500 | 74,493 | 6.7 |
| Rossendale and Darwen | 499 | 74,440 | 6.7 |
| Blackpool North and Fleetwood | 486 | 73,339 | 6.6 |
| Redcar | 464 | 70,241 | 6.6 |
| Bishop Auckland | 457 | 70,745 | 6.5 |
| Carlisle | 495 | 77,863 | 6.4 |
| Region | Signatures |
|---|---|
| South East | 25,925 |
| North West | 25,201 |
| East of England | 20,040 |
| Yorkshire and The Humber | 17,985 |
| South West | 17,419 |
| West Midlands | 16,638 |
| East Midlands | 15,636 |
| Scotland | 12,530 |
| North East | 10,998 |
| London | 10,976 |
| Wales | 10,680 |
| Northern Ireland | 3,483 |
Debate in Parliament
MPs debated the petition in Westminster Hall on 17 November 2025. Read the debate in Hansard. House of Commons Library debate pack.
Source and receipt
- https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/728715.jsonUK Parliament Petitions API · read 2026-10-15 · SHA-256
cf4b8cea9cf0ad9b… - The petition on petition.parliament.uk
The petition's words are its creator's and the response is the Government's; this site quotes both and gives no view on either. Signature counts can still change while a petition is open. To report an error, send a correction request.