Britain Convicts Woman For Inviting Consensual Conversation Outside An Abortion Facility
The conviction of Dr. Livia Tossici-Bolt, a retiree in the south of England, for holding a sign that read, “Here to talk, if you want” outside an abortion facility should chill anyone who values free speech. Yes, even if you disagree with her views or wouldn’t choose to engage with others in this way.
In a free society, offering consensual conversation should never be grounds for a criminal conviction — yet that is exactly what a court in the United Kingdom has done. When an offer to talk becomes a punishable offense, we can be certain that freedom of expression is under siege.
Inspired by the Covid-lockdown period when human interaction was limited, Livia, by way of her sign, offered to talk to anyone who wanted to stop and take her up on the offer. Originally from Italy, the retired clinical scientist loves to talk to people, and on different days she spoke to many, about all manner of topics.
Yet on April 4, Poole Magistrates’ Court found her guilty of breaching a local abortion facility “buffer zone.” She has been ordered to pay an onerous £20,000 in prosecution costs. The zone prohibits “approval or disapproval” of abortion, but Livia did neither. Her sign didn’t mention abortion, and — according to the officers in court — neither did she.
In the U.K., so-called “buffer zones,” in this case a sweeping area of about 300 by 200 meters, are wielded to criminalize peaceful expression. Livia neither obstructed access to the facility nor engaged in any form of intimidation. As noted in the judgment itself, one of the officers who attended testified in court that “he did not witness her intimidating or harassing any individual.” It is evident that with this guilty verdict, the court has violated Livia’s basic right to free expression and egregiously conflated a peaceful act of invitation with intimidation.
The judge who handed down her verdict recently found Adam Smith-Connor guilty for silently praying in a “buffer zone,” in a case that Vice President J.D. Vance directly highlighted in his Munich Security Conference speech.
Critics of Livia argue that “buffer zones” are necessary to shield women from harassment when they obtain abortions. But harassment is already illegal in Britain and amply covered under other law. On Livia’s part, there was no intimidation, no aggression whatsoever — it was accepted by the prosecution that she didn’t approach anyone. She simply and silently offered a respectful invitation to speak, which could be declined without words or consequence. The idea that this retiree’s sign amounts to intimidation is an insult to common sense.
Others object that she “knew the rules” and should have obeyed the “buffer zone.” First, this is a poor defense of bad law. If a regulation allows the state to criminalize an offer of consensual conversation, it is the law — not the citizen — that must be scrutinized. “Buffer zones” are nothing more than censorship zones, and as such, are incompatible with democracy.
Second, Livia maintains that she did not breach the censorship zone — she was merely offering consensual conversation, not protesting or harassing anyone. Indeed, her sign didn’t even mention abortion, nor did she discuss it. She didn’t approach anyone. And Livia’s position was that she would refrain from discussing abortion within the zone and that if anyone had wanted to discuss the topic she would only do so outside the zone.
The implications of this case have resonated beyond British shores, and the international reaction has been swift and critical. The U.S. State Department issued a rare rebuke, stating it was “monitoring” the case and is “disappointed” with the outcome because “freedom of expression must be protected for all.” When a nation that has historically championed fundamental freedoms eradicates free expression, it not only tarnishes its own democratic credentials but also sets a concerning example on the global stage. Clearly, all stand to lose if the U.K. abandons free speech. And while it’s never nice to be called out, if friends cannot do that from time to time, was it a friendship worth having in the first place?
In Livia’s words upon exiting the court, “This is a dark day for Great Britain. … All I did was offer consensual conversation in a public place, as is my basic right, and yet the court found me guilty. Freedom of expression is in a state of crisis in the UK. What has happened to this country?”
Livia’s guilty verdict is a call to vigilance for all who value the principles of free expression and democratic discourse. Livia, who was supported by ADF International in her legal defense, is assessing her options for appeal. The path forward must involve a steadfast commitment to protecting the rights of all individuals to express their views peacefully, without fear of punishment. Livia has been clear: “I remain committed to fighting for free speech, not only for my own sake but for all my fellow citizens. If we allow this precedent of censorship to stand, nobody’s right to freely express themselves is secure.”
We all have a stake in this verdict. Consensual conversation should not be a crime in a free society.
Jesus Christ is King
Comments are closed.