The Malicious Communications Act 1988 applies when someone sends or delivers a message that meets any one of the following criteria, as long as it is also sent with the intention of causing distress or anxiety: 

• Contains indecent, grossly offensive, or threatening content, or 

• Is false and known to be false by the sender 

And the message Is sent with the intention of causing distress or anxiety to the recipient. 

This applies to communications via: 

• Physical letters or printed materials 

• Emails and text messages 

• Social media posts or direct messages 

• Messaging platforms like Slack, Microsoft Teams, or WhatsApp 

The key legal test is whether the message was sent intending to cause distress or anxiety, and whether it meets at least one of the content thresholds above. 

Businesses in the screen industries rely heavily on fast, digital communication between teams, cast, employees, and clients. This increases the risk of: 

• Miscommunication or emotionally charged language 

• Inappropriate or aggressive behaviour being expressed in writing 

• Harmful content being shared via informal platforms 

A message sent in the heat of the moment could, under the Malicious Communications Act, amount to a criminal offence, especially if there is a clear intention to cause distress. 

Offences under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 can lead to criminal prosecution. If convicted in a Magistrates’ Court, the sender may face up to two years in prison, an unlimited fine, or both. Cases are typically enforced by the police, and reports can be made directly by individuals or by businesses supporting affected team members. 

The following are examples of situations that could fall within the scope of the Malicious Communications Act, depending on the specific content and the sender’s intent. The same legal test outlined above applies here: the message must be indecent, grossly offensive, threatening, or knowingly false, and it must be sent with the intention of causing distress or anxiety. Remember, not every unkind or unpleasant message is unlawful; the Act targets messages. 

Here are examples of situations where the Act could apply: 

• A production manager sends a message containing explicit threats to a set designer, causing them serious distress after a heated dispute. 

• A crew member sends a series of messages in a group chat using graphic, obscene language and slurs, clearly aimed at causing psychological harm to a colleague. 

• An individual repeatedly sends anonymous messages containing false accusations of criminal behaviour, knowing they are untrue, to cause significant distress to a business partner. 

• A worker is persistently targeted with degrading and indecent content via messaging platforms during and after production, designed to cause them extreme anxiety and/or humiliation. 

In each of these examples, the behaviour goes well beyond unkindness or disagreement, it involves abusive conduct that is severe enough to be considered criminal under the Act. 

The Malicious Communications Act 1988 predates the internet era but remains enforceable and relevant today. The Communications Act 2003 introduced additional offences related to online and public electronic communications. 

The two laws are sometimes used alongside each other. For example: 

• The 1988 Act focuses on intent to cause distress. This Act applies to both private and public communications, including emails, texts, letters, and direct messages sent via messaging apps and social networks. It is particularly relevant in workplace settings, where one-to-one or group communication may escalate into harmful behaviour. The Act focuses on the sender’s intent and whether the message was calculated to upset or distress the recipient. 

• The 2003 Act focuses on grossly offensive content shared via public electronic communications networks, such as social media or online forums. 
  For businesses, this is relevant when staff or freelancers engage in abusive behaviour via public channels, including company-affiliated social media, public chatrooms, or comment sections. Where abuse occurs on public platforms, both the individual and, in some cases, the business may face reputational or legal consequences, particularly if no action is taken once an issue is known. 

In practice, the two laws may be used together, depending on the platform and nature of the communication. For example, a malicious direct message sent privately might be prosecuted under the 1988 Act, while a publicly visible offensive post could fall under the 2003 Act. 

Businesses have a duty to prevent harm in the workplace, including through communications. Steps to help stay compliant and protect your teams include: 

• Setting clear expectations around acceptable language and behaviour across all platforms including email, messaging apps, and internal systems. 

• Including respectful communication policies in contracts, freelancer agreements, and staff handbooks. 

• Encouraging a culture where individuals feel safe reporting inappropriate or harmful messages. 

• Making it clear that malicious, threatening, or offensive messages, regardless of intent, are not acceptable and may lead to disciplinary or legal action. 

These are part of broader responsibilities under employment law and workplace harassment prevention. 

If a business becomes aware of a potentially malicious communication: 

• Document the message — do not delete it before a proper assessment. 

• Assess whether the communication may be illegal or cause serious distress. 

• Speak to the affected individual and offer support. 

• If appropriate, escalate the issue through internal procedures or consult with legal advisers. 

• In serious cases, the matter may need to be reported to the police. 

Responding promptly and clearly is critical, not only to limit legal risk but also to protect wellbeing. 

The Malicious Communications Act 1988 still carries weight today, especially in digital workplaces where fast, informal communication is the norm. For businesses in the screen industries, where creative pressures and remote collaboration are common, understanding this law is key to maintaining a safe and respectful working environment. 

Preventing abusive messages is not just about legal compliance, it also strengthens team culture, trust, and professionalism.