Communications Act 2003

From Vero - Wikipedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Template:Short description Template:Use British English Template:Use dmy dates Template:Infobox UK legislation

The Communications Act 2003 (c. 21) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> The act, which came into force on 25 July 2003, superseded the Telecommunications Act 1984. The new act was the responsibility of Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell. It consolidated the telecommunication and broadcasting regulators in the UK, introducing the Office of Communications (Ofcom) as the new industry regulator. On 28 December 2003 Ofcom gained its full regulatory powers, inheriting the duties of the Office of Telecommunications (Oftel). Among other measures, the act introduced legal recognition of community radio and paved the way for full-time community radio services in the UK, as well as controversially lifting many restrictions on cross-media ownership. It also made it illegal to use other people's Wi-Fi broadband connections without their permission. In addition, the legislation also allowed for the first time non-European entities to wholly own a British television company.<ref>UK Office of Communications [4.4.1] | ICT Regulation Toolkit Template:Webarchive</ref><ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>

Provisions of the act

The act has a large number of provisions, including the following:

  • Dishonestly obtaining access to the Internet with no intention to pay for the service was made a criminal offence.
  • Sending a malicious communication using social media was made a criminal offence.
  • The Independent Television Commission, Radio Authority, Office of Telecommunications, and Radiocommunications Agency were merged into Ofcom.
  • The telecommunications licensing regime was replaced by a general authorisation for companies to provide telecommunications services subject to general conditions of entitlement, while BT retained its universal service obligation.
  • It was declared an offence to "persistently make use of a public electronic communications network for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety". Ofcom subsequently developed policies to reduce the number of silent telephone calls.
  • Sections 78 to 93 concern OFCOM's powers and duties in markets where one or more business is able to exercise "significant market power" (SMP).
  • The public service remit for Channel 4 was revised.
  • Broadcasters were required to make a proportion of television programmes outside the London area (defined as outside the M25).
  • Restrictions on ITV company ownership were lifted, aside from "public interest" test that was added as an amendment in the House of Lords. The result was the formation of a single entity ITV plc controlling all of the ITV franchises in England and Wales in February 2004.
  • The limit on the proportion of ITN that any ITV operating company could own was abolished.
  • Broadcasters were required to carry a "suitable quantity and range of programmes" dealing with religion and other beliefs, as part of their public service broadcasting.
  • Political advertising on television or radio was prohibited.
  • Ofcom given the responsibility to 'promote' media literacy.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref>
  • The Gaelic Media Service (now MG ALBA) was created "to secure that a wide and diverse range of high quality programmes in Gaelic are broadcast or otherwise transmitted so as to be available to persons in Scotland".
  • Community radio stations were recognised as a distinct third tier of radio alongside BBC Radio and commercial radio.
  • The authority for the BBC to collect the licence fee was set out.
  • Provision was made for the requirements for blind and deaf television viewers. This has subsequently included sign language, subtitles and audio description.
  • The Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice was established as the regulatory body ensuring that advertising on radio and television is not misleading, harmful, offensive, or beyond the boundaries of taste and decency.

Wi-Fi

It is an offence under section 125 of the act to obtain access to the Internet when there is no intention to pay for that service.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> The legislation was intended to prevent the major defrauding of communications companies. Nevertheless, the individual practice of piggybacking (the illicit use of a Wi-Fi connection to access another subscriber's Internet service) was demonstrated to be a contravention of the act by R v Straszkiewicz in 2005.<ref>Template:Cite news</ref> There have been subsequent arrests for the practice.<ref>Template:Cite news</ref> Piggybacking may also be a breach of the Computer Misuse Act 1990. Section 125 of the act has been criticised for its vagueness, resulting in the possibility that many users of portable Wi-Fi enabled devices are inadvertently breaching it.<ref>Template:Cite news</ref>

Malicious communications

Section 127 (1) of the act makes it an offence to send a message that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character over a public electronic communications network.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> The section replaced section 43 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 and is drafted as widely as its predecessor.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> The section has been used controversially to prosecute users of social media in cases such as the Twitter Joke Trial and Facebook comments concerning the murder of April Jones.<ref>Template:Cite news</ref> Section 127 is a summary offence,<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> so it is tried in a magistrates court with no right to jury trial.

On 19 December 2012, to strike a balance between freedom of speech and criminality, the Director of Public Prosecutions issued interim guidelines, clarifying when social messaging is eligible for criminal prosecution under UK law. Only communications that are credible threats of violence, harassment, or stalking (such as aggressive Internet trolling) which specifically targets an individual or individuals or breaches a court order designed to protect someone (such as those protecting the identity of a victim of a sexual offence) will be prosecuted. Communications that express an "unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, or banter or humour, even if distasteful to some and painful to those subjected to it" will not. Communications that are merely "grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or false" will be prosecuted only when it can be shown to be necessary and proportionate. People who pass on malicious messages, such as by retweeting, can also be prosecuted when the original message is subject to prosecution. Individuals who post messages as part of a separate crime, such as a plan to import drugs, would face prosecution for that offence, as is currently the case.<ref name="USDOS-HRR-UK-2012">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref><ref>Template:Cite news</ref><ref>Template:Cite news</ref>

Revisions to the interim guidelines were issued on 20 June 2013 following a public consultation.<ref>Template:Cite news</ref> The revisions specified that prosecutors should consider:

  • whether messages were aggravated by references to race, religion or other minorities, and whether they breached existing rules to counter harassment or stalking; and
  • the age and maturity of any wrongdoer should be taken into account and given great weight.

The revisions also clarified that criminal prosecutions were "unlikely":

  • when the author of the message had "expressed genuine remorse";
  • when "swift and effective action ... to remove the communication" was taken; or
  • when messages were not intended for a wide audience.

More recently, Section 127 has been used to prosecute those alleged to have sent grossly offensive messages on a public electronic communications network, such as WhatsApp, but which were not visible to an audience beyond the intended recipients. In 2022, a serving police officer and a former constable each received 12-week prison sentences for sending racist, misogynistic, ableist, and homophobic messages to a WhatsApp group. The group was uncovered as convicted murderer, and former police officer, Wayne Couzens had been a member.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> Six more former police officers, retired at the time of the offensive communications, pleaded guilty to a similar but unrelated WhatsApp group in September 2023.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> Such prosecutions are not without controversy since they treat encrypted messages, by their nature only visible to intended recipients, as public because they are sent using publicly available instant messaging platforms, rather than because the individual messages themselves are visible to the public.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> Andrew Tettenborn, a British legal academic, has argued that this criminalises speech which would not be illegal if spoken aloud in private conversation.<ref>Template:Cite magazine</ref>

The Law Commission, a public body which reviews and recommends changes to the law, recommended that Section 127 be replaced with new offences that are more targeted in their approach. This was intended to update legislation passed prior to the widespread use of instant messaging and to reduce concerns about limits on the freedom of expression.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> Though Online Safety Act 2023 adopted some of these proposals by repealing Section 127(2) <ref>Template:Cite legislation UK</ref> and replacing it with two new offences: threatening communication and false communication,<ref name="BCP">Template:Cite book</ref> Section 127(1) pertaining to grossly offensive messages remains in force.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>

Amendments to the act

|CitationClass=web }}</ref>

Template:Infobox UK legislation

Notable prosecutions

|CitationClass=web }}</ref>

|CitationClass=web }}</ref><ref>The conviction of Count Dankula sets a dangerous precedent for freedom of speech Template:Webarchive The Independent, Shappi Khorsandi ,Friday 23 March 2018</ref><ref>Man arrested over 'Nazi salute dog' video Man arrested over 'Nazi salute dog' video Template:Webarchive 9 May 2016</ref> Even though Meechan said that he was not actually racist and that it was a joke intended to annoy his girlfriend, the court found him guilty of being "grossly offensive" on 20 March.<ref>Template:Cite news</ref> He was fined £800 at Airdrie Sheriff Court on 23 April 2018.<ref>BBC News Template:Webarchive Man fined for hate crime after filming pug's 'Nazi salutes'</ref>

  • 2018: A Merseyside woman was convicted under the Communications Act for posting rap lyrics on Instagram which were deemed 'racist', due to them including racially charged language. Chelsea Russell had used lyrics from a Snap Dogg song as a tribute to a boy who died in a road accident. She was sentenced to an eight-week community order, along with an eight-week curfew. She was also ordered to pay costs of £500 and an £85 victim surcharge.<ref>Template:Cite news</ref><ref>Template:Cite news</ref> Her conviction was quashed on appeal in February 2019.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=web }}</ref><ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>

  • 2020: Kate Scottow was convicted in February 2020 for tweeting "transphobic" insults. This conviction was quashed on appeal in December 2020.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=web }}</ref><ref>Template:Cite BAILII</ref>

See also

Notes

Template:Reflist

Template:Telecommunications industry in the United Kingdom

Retrieved from "https://wiki.sarg.dev/index.php?title=Communications_Act_2003&oldid=685551"