United Kingdom

This section applies to a statement that is likely to be understood by a reasonable person as a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement, to some or all of the members of the public to whom it is published, to the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences. A person commits an offence if he publishes a statement to which this section applies … and at the time he publishes it … he (i) intends members of the public to be directly or indirectly encouraged … or (ii) is reckless as to whether members of the public will be directly or indirectly encouraged.

Terrorism Act 2006 s.1(1)–(2), as amended.

Cite · Terrorism Act 2006 s.1(1)–(2), (7)(a) · as of 2026-09-05

UK listed-speech offence is not 'praise is enough.' The statutory glorification limb is gated. Read s.1(3) next.

• Older summaries still say 7 years. The live maximum on indictment is 15 years. Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 s.7(6).

For the purposes of this section, the statements that are likely to be understood by a reasonable person as indirectly encouraging the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences include every statement which—(a) glorifies the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of such acts or offences; and (b) is a statement from which members of the public could reasonably be expected to infer that what is being glorified is being glorified as conduct that should be emulated by them in existing circumstances.

Terrorism Act 2006 s.1(3). Glorification includes praise or celebration: s.20(2).

Cite · Terrorism Act 2006 s.1(3), s.20(2) · as of 2026-09-05

Praise is not enough. The emulate-now inference is the statutory gate.

• Do not say UK law criminalizes praise standing alone.

• s.1(4): how a statement is likely to be understood, and what the public could infer, is determined from contents as a whole and the circumstances and manner of publication.

It is irrelevant for the purposes of subsections (1) to (3)— (a) whether anything mentioned in those subsections relates to the commission, preparation or instigation of one or more particular acts of terrorism or Convention offences, of acts of terrorism or Convention offences of a particular description or of acts of terrorism or Convention offences generally; and (b) whether any person is in fact encouraged or induced by the statement to commit, prepare or instigate any such act or offence.

Terrorism Act 2006 s.1(5).

Cite · Terrorism Act 2006 s.1(5) · as of 2026-09-05

• The offence is complete without a listener who was in fact encouraged.

A person commits an offence if— (a) he invites support for a proscribed organisation, and (b) the support is not, or is not restricted to, the provision of money or other property (within the meaning of section 15).

Terrorism Act 2000 s.12(1).

Cite · Terrorism Act 2000 s.12(1), (6)(a) · as of 2026-09-05

• Home Office: the support invited need not be material and can include moral support or approval.

A person commits an offence if the person— (a) expresses an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation, and (b) in doing so is reckless as to whether a person to whom the expression is directed will be encouraged to support a proscribed organisation.

Terrorism Act 2000 s.12(1A), inserted 12 April 2019 by Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 s.1.

Cite · Terrorism Act 2000 s.12(1A), (6)(a) · as of 2026-09-05

s.12(1A) is the reckless-supportive-opinion offence. It is not the s.1 listed-speech limb, and it is not s.12(1) invitation.

• Inserted to close the gap noted in R v Choudary and Rahman [2016] EWCA Crim 61: s.12(1) did not prohibit holding or expressing supportive opinions.
• Maximum on indictment is 14 years: Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021 s.26(1)(b), in force 29 June 2021.

A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if— (a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or (b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.

Public Order Act 1986 s.18(1). Scotland: ss.18–21 repealed from 1 April 2024 by Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021.

Cite · Public Order Act 1986 s.18 · as of 2026-09-05

This is the classification overlay sitting next to TA 2006 s.1, not a substitute for it.

• The UK is not one legal system. Do not cite s.18 as live in Scotland.
• Part 3A (sexual orientation) is a later sticker on related machinery, with a narrower ‘threatening’ + intent test.

For the purposes of the Code, a ‘particular characteristic’ means race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or transgender identity, as defined in hate crime legislation. … personal data should only be included in an NCHI record if the event presents a real risk of either: significant harm to individuals or groups with a particular characteristic or characteristics; [or] a future criminal offence being committed against individuals or groups with a particular characteristic or characteristics.

College of Policing summary of the Home Secretary’s Code of Practice, 3 June 2023. Official Code: Home Office. Miller v College of Policing [2021] EWCA Civ 1926 is the prior-restraint backdrop.

Cite · NCHI Code of Practice (June 2023); College of Policing APP · as of 2026-09-05

Below-crime recording is the creep layer. Abolition was announced. Revocation is Unproven.

• Do not speak as if the 2026 replacement has already revoked the Code.

• College of Policing / NPCC, 31 March 2026: major reforms proposed; the current NCHI system would be replaced; the Home Office would revoke the Code through the Crime and Policing Bill. Treat the 2023 Code as live until revocation is attached.
• This is how a sticker applies with no crime. Not a US federal duty.

The unanimous decision of this court is that the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex.

Lord Hodge, handing down For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16, 16 April 2025. Full judgment on the UK Supreme Court site.

Cite · [2025] UKSC 16 · as of 2026-09-05

Scope creep can delete a characteristic. A court can put it back without Parliament writing a listed-speech offence.

• This is pushback against sticker collision, not a new overlay crime.
• Do not treat the judgment as cancelling gender-reassignment protection. The Court said that protection remains.