Criminality of prayer within a home “depends on who’s passing the window” claims author of the Scottish “buffer zones” law called out by JD Vance 

  • Gillian Mackay MSP claims visible prayer by a window at home could be a crime if within 200m from an abortion facility, depending on who is “passing the window”
  • Comments come weeks after Vance called out Scotland’s censored “buffer zones” – Mackay previously described his concerns about prayer at home as “misinformation”
Gillian Mackay, interviewed on BBC “Scotcast” podcast this week. Full episode available on BBC iPlayer, clip begins 24.07

EDINBURGH (26th February 2025) – Gillian Mackay MSP, the politician who authored the Scottish “buffer zones” law which forbids “influence” within 200m of an abortion facility, has admitted that prayer by a window in one’s own home could be an offence – depending on who is passing by. 

Speaking to BBC’s “Scotcast” podcast this week, the Green Party Politician repeatedly denied that prayer was being criminalised under the law. But when asked if “performative prayer” with “clasped hands”, visible from a window, could be prosecuted, she responded: “well, that depends on who’s passing by the window…”

“Clearly, the “buffer zones” law is fundamentally flawed when it comes to undermining basic freedoms of speech, thought, and religion.”

- Lois McLatchie Miller, Scottish Spokesperson for ADF International

US Vice President JD Vance recently highlighted the censorial nature of the law, referring to letters that had been sent to people’s homes warning them of the laws being put in place: 

“…this last October, just a few months ago, the Scottish government began distributing letters to citizens whose houses lay within so-called “safe access zones,” warning them that even private prayer within their own homes may amount to breaking the law.  

Naturally, the government urged readers to report any fellow citizens suspected guilty of thoughtcrime.  

In Britain, and across Europe, free speech, I fear, is in retreat.” 

Was J.D. Vance correct?

Mackay claimed that the Vice President was spreading “shameless misinformation”, and in the same Scotcast interview, pointed out that “nowhere in that letter does it say private prayer.” 

The letter refers to a prohibition on activities that would “intentionally or recklessly…influence somebody’s decision to access” an abortion facility. 

When pressed as to whether visibly praying from a window could meet the threshold of “influence”, Mackay admitted that it would depend on who was passing by the window at the point of prayer. 

Commenting on the interview, Lois McLatchie Miller, Scottish spokesperson for ADF International, said: 

“Clearly, the “buffer zones” law is fundamentally flawed when it comes to undermining basic freedoms of speech, thought, and religion. We all stand firmly against harassment, which has been illegal for many years – but the law goes much too far in preventing people from praying, or holding consensual conversations, in large public areas of Scotland. 

“Gillian Mackay confirmed that “performative” prayer could be a crime, “depending on who is passing by the window”. The accusation of prayer being “performative” rather than genuine lies in the eye of the beholder. Who are the police to doubt the genuineness of somebody’s faith, based on where they are located, and the position of their hands? 

“ J.D. Vance was right to raise concerns – this law is an illiberal travesty.” 

74-year-old grandmother arrested in Glasgow "buffer zone"

On 19th February, a 74-year-old woman was arrested for holding a sign in a Glasgow “buffer zone” reading: “coercion is a crime, here to talk, if you want.” 

The Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018 made “coercive control” illegal, recognising the profoundly harmful effects it can have on individuals and society. Over 6,640 charges related to this behaviour have been reported to the Crown Office between April 2019 and 2023. 14% of women have undergone coercion when it comes to making a decision about abortion – that’s about 1 in 7.   

Commenting on her arrest, Rose Docherty said:

“I held a sign that read “Coercion is a crime, here to talk, if you want”. Everyone has the right to a consensual conversation. I simply made myself available for a chat, should anybody like to approach me and speak about any matter on their mind. I didn’t breach the buffer zone – I didn’t harass, intimidate, or even seek to influence anyone. I simply stood there, available to speak with love and compassion.  

“It isn’t right to deprive anyone of the right to take up my offer to talk. And it isn’t right to censor zones within our country from thoughts, beliefs and conversations that authorities may simply disapprove of. Buffer zones aren’t “pro-choice” – they deprive women of the choice to have a chat outside the clinic. That isn’t right.” 

Watch the footage of the arrest here.

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only

PICTURED: Rose Docherty; Lois McLatchie Miller, ADF International

Chile’s Congress Calls for Immediate Suspension of “Gender Transition” Programs for Children 

  • Chamber of Deputies adopts groundbreaking report calling for the immediate suspension of “gender transition” programs for minors and a full legislative overhaul in Chile 
  • Investigatory commission found off-label use of puberty blockers, lack of parental consent, and public funding for unapproved medical interventions in children 

SANTIAGO (16 May 2025) – In a landmark move, Chile’s Chamber of Deputies has adopted the findings of a Special Investigatory Commission calling for the immediate suspension of government programs that promote the medicalized transition of minors.

The Commission’s report was adopted on Thursday by the majority of the deputies present in the Chamber. It details systemic medical, legal, and ethical failings in the state’s handling of children and adolescents who experience gender-related distress. 

““Chile has become the first country in Latin America to confront the harms of the gender-affirming model through a democratic process."

- Tomas Henriquez, ADF International Director of Advocacy for Latin America

 

“Chile has become the first country in Latin America to confront the harms of the gender-affirming model through a democratic process. Congress has taken a courageous step in protecting children from the irreversible dangers of so-called ‘gender transition’,” said Tomás Henríquez, Director of Latin America Advocacy for ADF International. 

“The Commission found that programs like PAIG – Crece con Orgullo and the Trans Health Program (PST) have operated as a pipeline to irreversible medical interventions, including puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for children as young as ten, without scientific basis, regulatory oversight, or parental consent.”

The report highlights the following major findings: 

  • Children as young as three years old were referred for gender identity programs. 
  • 1,716 minors were identified as recipients or in line for hormone therapies in 2023 alone. 
  • None of the drugs used—including GnRH analogues—have been approved by Chile’s public health regulator for gender dysphoria in children. 
  • Parental consent procedures were absent or inconsistent, and some interventions proceeded without it. 

The report states: 

“It is clear that the current programs, under the guise of accompaniment, have operated as a gateway to irreversible medical and hormonal transition for children, without the necessary scientific, ethical, or legal safeguards.” 

 It further states: 

“The therapeutic indication of these treatments in minors lacks adequate evidence and carries high risks. The principles of medicine—primum non nocere (first, do no harm)—have been disregarded.” 

 The report calls for: 

  • Immediate suspension of the PAIG and PST programs 
  • A ban on hormonal and surgical interventions for all minors 
  • Legislative reform of Chile’s Gender Identity Law to restore parental rights and restrict access 
  • Referral to the Public Prosecutor’s Office for possible criminal violations 

It is widely expected that the Congress will now move to legislatively bar the use of puberty blockers, cross sex hormones, and so-called surgical transitioning for minors. 

The report follows last year’s vote introducing an amendment to ban the use of public funds for “gender transitioning” of children. That amendment was later struck down by the Constitutional Court over separation of powers grounds, but this vote reveals a consolidated majority of lawmakers in favor of restricting “gender transition” for minors. 

 Henríquez added: 

“This is a turning point—not only for Chile, but for the entire region, in the disavowal of the lie of gender ideology. Lawmakers have listened to the evidence, the science, and the voices of parents. The so-called gender-affirming model is collapsing globally, and Chile is now leading Latin America toward a more responsible and ethical approach to gender dysphoria in youth.” 

The report mirrors international developments such as the UK’s Cass Review, which concluded that the so-called “gender-affirming approach” lacks an evidence base and places children at risk. It also follows the release of the US Department of Health and Human Services Gender Dysphoria Report in April. 

ADF International has urged Chilean authorities to implement the Commission’s recommendations without delay and to ensure that all children receive compassionate, evidence-based psychological support without being steered toward dangerous life-altering medical procedures. 

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only

PICTURED: Tomas Henriquez

As Albanese claims electoral victory, U.S. State Dept warns Australia: Don’t censor free speech on 𝕏

  •  U.S. State Dept. “deeply concerned” about foreign censorship on U.S. social media platforms – including Australia’s censorship of Canadian campaigner “Billboard Chris” (Chris Elston)
  • Elston legally challenged the Australian eSafety Commissioner for censoring his post on gender ideology last month. ADF International supported the case

MELBOURNE (5 May 2025)  – As the Labour Party claim victory in Australia’s election, the U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, & Labor has issued a warning to the government not to censor free speech on U.S. social media platforms.

Listed as an example of such “concerning” behaviour is the decision of the Australian eSafety Commissioner to require Musk’s 𝕏 to censor Canadian campaigner “Billboard Chris” (Chris Elston), who posted a criticism of gender ideology, and used biologically accurate pronouns to describe an Australian “transgender” activist, in a now “geo-blocked” post in 2024. 

Elston is a public campaigner against puberty blockers being given to children.

“If our free speech can't be protected when we speak out against the greatest child abuse scandal in the world right now, when can it be?”

- Chris Elston ("Billboard Chris")

The State Department’s statement, released on social media, reads:

“The Department of State is deeply concerned about efforts by governments to coerce American tech companies into targeting individuals for censorship. Freedom of expression must be protected – online and offline.

“Examples of this conduct are troublingly numerous. EU Commissioner Thierry Breton threatened X for hosting political speech; Türkiye fined Meta for refusing to restrict content about protests; and Australia required X to remove a post criticizing an individual for promoting gender ideology.

“Even when content may be objectionable, censorship undermines democracy, suppresses political opponents, and degrades public safety. The United States opposes efforts to undermine freedom of expression. As @SecRubio said, our diplomacy will continue to place an emphasis on promoting fundamental freedoms.”

Reacting to the news of the State Department’s intervention, Chris Elston (“Billboard Chris”) said: 

“It’s tremendous to have the State Department support what we all know is true: free speech is a fundamental right, critical to a democratic society. 

If our free speech can’t be protected when we speak out against the greatest child abuse scandal in the world right now, when can it be?” 

Both 𝕏 and Billboard Chris, who was supported by ADF International and the Australian Human Rights Law Alliance, legally challenged the decision in Melbourne last month. The result is expected in the second half of this year. 

Australia censored post using biologically accurate pronouns to describe "transgender" activist

The Australian eSafety Commissioner defended the decision to censor Elston’s post before a Tribunal in Melbourne last month by arguing that a post using the biologically accurate pronouns of a transgender activist was “likely …intended to have an effect of causing serious harm” and should therefore be subject to state-enforced censorship, in accordance with Australia’s Online Safety Act.

The post in question, which was subject to a “removal notice” at the hands of the eSafety Commissioner in April 2024, shared a Daily Mail article headlined “Kinky secrets of UN trans expert REVEALED: Australian activist plugs bondage, bestiality, nudism, drugs, and tax-funded sex-change ops – so why is he writing health advice for the world body?” and which included pictures posted on social media by transgender activist, and WHO expert panel appointee, Teddy Cook.  

In February 2024, Canadian internet sensation and children’s safety campaigner “Billboard Chris” (Chris Elston), took to U.S. social media platform “X” to share the article, adding the comment: 

“This woman (yes, she’s female) is part of a panel of 20 ‘experts’ hired by the @WHO to draft their policy on caring for ‘trans people.” 

“People who belong in psychiatric wards are writing the guidelines for people who belong in psychiatric wards.” 

The takedown order was legally challenged by Elon Musk’s platform “X”, and by Elston. ADF International and the Human Rights Law Alliance are supporting Elston’s legal case.  

In his evidence, Elston told the Tribunal that while the first sentence of the tweet was a specific comment to the Daily Mail’s story on Teddy Cook, his second sentence was intended more broadly, to make a political comment about the ideological bias present amongst those in positions of power and influence when it comes to writing gender policy around the world. 

Speaking on the witness stand, Elston added: 

“It’s damaging to teach children they are born in the wrong body…children are beautiful just as they are. No drugs or scalpels needed.” 

Asked further about why he chose to post on this matter, Elston explained: “Because the World Health Organisation has global influence. We should have evidence-based care.” 

Freedom of political communication is protected as an implied right under the Australian Constitution. 

Robert Clarke, Director of Advocacy for ADF International, which is backing Elston’s legal defence, said: 

“The decision of Australian authorities to prevent Australian citizens from hearing and evaluating information about gender ideology is a patronizing affront to the principles of democracy.  

“The confidence of the Australian eSafety commissioner to censor citizens of Canada on an American platform, shows the truly global nature of the free speech crisis. 

“Speaking up for free speech is critical at this juncture, and we’re proud to be backing Billboard Chris as he does just that.”  

Members of the public are invited to support Chris’s legal case here: https://adfinternational.org/campaign/support-billboard-chris   

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only

Pictured: (1,2) “Billboard Chris” (Chris Elston)engaging in street activism; (3) Chris Elston with the ADF International team supporting his case; (4) Chris Elston with Lois McLatchie Miller (ADF International) in Sydney

U.S. State Department calls out Australian government for “coercing” Musk’s 𝕏 to censor truth on gender

  • “Censorship undermines democracy, suppresses political opponents, and degrades public safety”, reads U.S. State Dept. statement calling out Australia’s censorship of Canadian campaigner “Billboard Chris” (Chris Elston)
  • Elston legally challenged the Australian eSafety Commissioner for censoring his post on gender ideology last month. ADF International supported the case

Washington, D.C. (3 May 2025)  – The U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, & Labor has called out foreign governments who “coerce” U.S. social media platforms to censor users for speaking the truth.

Listed as an example of such “concerning” behaviour is the decision of the Australian eSafety Commissioner  to require Musk’s 𝕏 to censor Canadian campaigner “Billboard Chris” (Chris Elston), who posted a criticism of gender ideology, and used biologically accurate pronouns to describe an Australian “transgender” activist, in a now “geo-blocked” post in 2024. 

Elston is a public campaigner against puberty blockers being given to children.

“If our free speech can't be protected when we speak out against the greatest child abuse scandal in the world right now, when can it be?”

- Chris Elston ("Billboard Chris")

Reacting to the news of the State Department’s intervention, Chris Elston (“Billboard Chris”) said: 

“It’s tremendous to have the State Department support what we all know is true: free speech is a fundamental right, critical to a democratic society. 

If our free speech can’t be protected when we speak out against the greatest child abuse scandal in the world right now, when can it be?” 

Both 𝕏 and Billboard Chris, who was supported by ADF International and the Australian Human Rights Law Alliance, legally challenged the decision in Melbourne last month. The result is expected in the second half of this year. 

The State Department’s statement, released on social media, reads:

“The Department of State is deeply concerned about efforts by governments to coerce American tech companies into targeting individuals for censorship. Freedom of expression must be protected – online and offline.

“Examples of this conduct are troublingly numerous. EU Commissioner Thierry Breton threatened X for hosting political speech; Türkiye fined Meta for refusing to restrict content about protests; and Australia required X to remove a post criticizing an individual for promoting gender ideology.

“Even when content may be objectionable, censorship undermines democracy, suppresses political opponents, and degrades public safety. The United States opposes efforts to undermine freedom of expression. As @SecRubio said, our diplomacy will continue to place an emphasis on promoting fundamental freedoms.”

Australia censored post using biologically accurate pronouns to describe "transgender" activist

The Australian eSafety Commissioner defended the decision to censor Elston’s post before a Tribunal in Melbourne last month by arguing that a post using the biologically accurate pronouns of a transgender activist was “likely …intended to have an effect of causing serious harm” and should therefore be subject to state-enforced censorship, in accordance with Australia’s Online Safety Act.

The post in question, which was subject to a “removal notice” at the hands of the eSafety Commissioner in April 2024, shared a Daily Mail article headlined “Kinky secrets of UN trans expert REVEALED: Australian activist plugs bondage, bestiality, nudism, drugs, and tax-funded sex-change ops – so why is he writing health advice for the world body?” and which included pictures posted on social media by transgender activist, and WHO expert panel appointee, Teddy Cook.  

In February 2024, Canadian internet sensation and children’s safety campaigner “Billboard Chris” (Chris Elston), took to U.S. social media platform “X” to share the article, adding the comment: 

“This woman (yes, she’s female) is part of a panel of 20 ‘experts’ hired by the @WHO to draft their policy on caring for ‘trans people.” 

“People who belong in psychiatric wards are writing the guidelines for people who belong in psychiatric wards.” 

The takedown order was legally challenged by Elon Musk’s platform “X”, and by Elston. ADF International and the Human Rights Law Alliance are supporting Elston’s legal case.  

In his evidence, Elston told the Tribunal that while the first sentence of the tweet was a specific comment to the Daily Mail’s story on Teddy Cook, his second sentence was intended more broadly, to make a political comment about the ideological bias present amongst those in positions of power and influence when it comes to writing gender policy around the world. 

Speaking on the witness stand, Elston added: 

“It’s damaging to teach children they are born in the wrong body…children are beautiful just as they are. No drugs or scalpels needed.” 

Asked further about why he chose to post on this matter, Elston explained: “Because the World Health Organisation has global influence. We should have evidence-based care.” 

Freedom of political communication is protected as an implied right under the Australian Constitution. 

Robert Clarke, Director of Advocacy for ADF International, which is backing Elston’s legal defence, said: 

“The decision of Australian authorities to prevent Australian citizens from hearing and evaluating information about gender ideology is a patronizing affront to the principles of democracy.  

“The confidence of the Australian eSafety commissioner to censor citizens of Canada on an American platform, shows the truly global nature of the free speech crisis. 

“Speaking up for free speech is critical at this juncture, and we’re proud to be backing Billboard Chris as he does just that.”  

Members of the public are invited to support Chris’s legal case here: https://adfinternational.org/campaign/support-billboard-chris   

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only

Pictured: “Billboard Chris” (Chris Elston); Chris Elston with the ADF International team supporting his case

Christian woman convicted for offering consensual conversation in abortion facility ‘buffer zone’, ordered to pay £20,000 in prosecution costs

Livia is guilty.

  • Retired clinical scientist and Christian Dr Livia Tossici-Bolt, 64, found guilty this morning at Poole Magistrates’ Court

  • Dr Tossici-Bolt held a sign reading ‘here to talk, if you want’ and did not engage in harassment, intimidation, or obstruction. Her legal defence is supported by ADF International

  • The US State Department this week expressed concern about freedom of expression in the UK, commenting it was ‘monitoring’ her case

Livia is guilty.

BOURNEMOUTH (4 April 2025) – A Christian woman was this morning convicted for offering consensual conversation in a censorial “buffer zone”.

Dr Livia Tossici-Bolt, 64, was found guilty at Poole Magistrates’ Court. Despite finding as a fact that “the sign made no reference to pregnancy, abortion, or religious matters” and hearing evidence from one council officer that “he did not witness her intimidating or harassing any individual”, District Judge Austin ruled that council officers had a reasonable belief that she was in violation of the PSPO.

One of the council officers testified that “he formed the view that [Tossici-Bolt] was in breach of [the PSPO] on several grounds. He considered her pro-life views, his own previous interaction with her, the complaint that had been received and the sign that she was holding.”

In mitigation, counsel for Dr Tossici-Bolt stressed that “The council has not adduced any evidence that she was observed by any service user or any other form of harm…neither is there an identified victim in this case.”

Following the conviction, the Judge sentenced Dr Tossici-Bolt to a conditional discharge and ordered her to pay prosecution costs of £20,000 which must be paid in full by 31 May 2025.

Earlier this week, a US State Department bureau said it was “monitoring” Dr Tossici-Bolt’s case, which is supported by ADF International, and that it was “concerned about freedom of expression in the United Kingdom”.

Reacting to the verdict, Dr Tossici-Bolt said:

“This is a dark day for Great Britain. I was not protesting and did not harass or obstruct anyone. 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? The US State Department was right to be concerned by this case as it has serious implications for the entire Western world."

- Livia Tossici-Bolt

“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. With ADF International’s support, I will now consider all legal options,” she continued.

Legal Counsel for ADF International Lorcán Price commented:

“Everyone who cares about free speech should care about ‘buffer zones’. A Christian woman has been convicted merely for offering to chat on a public street in Britain. This ruling should show all reasonable people that, beyond the shadow of a doubt, abortion facility ‘buffer zones’ are incompatible with a free society.

“We will now support Livia in considering all legal options.”

Dr Tossici-Bolt was issued a fixed penalty notice for holding a sign that said “Here to talk, if you want” in a censorial abortion facility “buffer zone” in Bournemouth.

She was then prosecuted after she declined to pay it on the grounds that she did not breach the terms of the Public Spaces Protection Order—which bans acts of approval and disapproval regarding abortion—and had the right, protected under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act, to offer consensual conversations. 

The District Judge who gave today’s verdict is the same judge who last October found Adam Smith-Connor guilty for silently praying in a “buffer zone”, in a case which US Vice President JD Vance directly highlighted in his Munich Security Conference speech

With ADF International’s support, Mr Smith-Connor will appeal his conviction in a July trial.

For more details on Dr Tossici-Bolt’s case, find her support page here.

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only

Australian tribunal to rule on whether using biologically accurate pronouns online is grounds for censorship 

  • CASE CONTINUES: Musk’s “X” and Canadian campaigner “Billboard Chris” challenge Australian “eSafety Commissioner” for censoring online post criticizing gender ideology 
  • Testifying, campaigner “Billboard Chris” tells Tribunal: “It’s damaging to teach children they are born in the wrong body” 
  • Post referred to controversial WHO “expert” appointee Teddy Cook by her biologically accurate pronouns 

MELBOURNE (2 April 2025) – The Australian eSafety Commissioner has argued that a post using the biologically-accurate pronouns of a transgender activist was “likely …intended to have an effect of causing serious harm” and should therefore be subject to state-enforced censorship, before the Administrative Review Tribunal in Melbourne this week. 

The post in question, which was subject to a “removal notice” at the hands of the eSafety Commissioner in April 2024, shared a Daily Mail article headlined “Kinky secrets of UN trans expert REVEALED: Australian activist plugs bondage, bestiality, nudism, drugs, and tax-funded sex-change ops – so why is he writing health advice for the world body?” and which included pictures posted on social media by transgender activist, and WHO expert panel appointee, Teddy Cook.  

The takedown order is being legally challenged by Elon Musk’s platform “X”, and by the author of the post, Chris Elston, known as “Billboard Chris” online.  

ADF International and the Human Rights Law Alliance are supporting Elston’s legal case.  

“It’s damaging to teach children they are born in the wrong body…Children are beautiful just as they are. No drugs or scalpels needed.”

- Chris Elston ("Billboard Chris")

“I want everyone to think for themselves”

In February 2024, Canadian internet sensation and children’s safety campaigner “Billboard Chris” (Chris Elston), took to U.S. social media platform “X” to share the article, adding the comment: 

“This woman (yes, she’s female) is part of a panel of 20 ‘experts’ hired by the @WHO to draft their policy on caring for ‘trans people.” 

“People who belong in psychiatric wards are writing the guidelines for people who belong in psychiatric wards.” 

In his evidence this week, Elston told the Tribunal that while the first sentence of the tweet was a specific comment to the Daily Mail’s story on Teddy Cook, his second sentence was intended more broadly, to make a political comment about the ideological bias present amongst those in positions of power and influence when it comes to writing gender policy around the world. 

Speaking on the witness stand, Elston added: 

“It’s damaging to teach children they are born in the wrong body…children are beautiful just as they are. No drugs or scalpels needed.” 

Asked further about why he chose to post on this matter, Elston explained: “Because the World Health Organisation has global influence. We should have evidence-based care.” 

Under cross-examination, Elston responded, “My goal is not to provoke outrage. My goal is to simply try to educate people, and encourage discussion. I want everyone to think for themselves.” 

Freedom of political communication is protected as an implied right under the Australian Constitution. 

Defining “serious harm” to justify censorship

In accordance with Australia’s Online Safety Act 2021, the eSafety Commissioner seeks to prove that Chris Elston’s post constitutes “cyber abuse material directed at an Australian adult”, including that it “was likely that the material was intended to have an effect of causing serious harm”. 

Counsel for the eSafety Commissioner has suggested that Elston’s post could meet this threshold.  

Expert witness, consultant medical psychiatrist Dr. Jill Redden, testified that using biologically-accurate pronouns for somebody identifying as transgender could cause “irritation” and upset, but would not likely cross the statutory threshold to constitute “serious harm”. 

When asked how long one might expect to experience serious psychological symptoms of that severity, Dr. Redden answered “several months”. Elston’s counsel pointed out that Teddy Cook had professed on an Instagram post to be “living my best life” just nine days after the X post at the centre of this case was published. 

Media professor testifies that biologically accurate pronouns are “anti-science” 

The eSafety Commissioner called Professor Rob Cover of the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, a Professor of Digital Communication, as an expert witness. 

Professor Cover testified that he believes it is “harmful”, “offensive”, “untruthful”, “rude” and “anti-science” to use biologically accurate pronouns when referring to a person who identifies as transgender.  

He added that using sex-based language “adds to a kind of anti-trans rhetoric which is a common kind of misinformation…online and offline”. 

Cover considers his personal view to be “informed by science” and by “the truth of the person which wishes to be identified in that way in accordance with their reality.” 

Robert Clarke, Director of Advocacy for ADF International, which is backing Elston’s legal defence, said: 

“The decision of Australian authorities to prevent Australian citizens from hearing and evaluating information about gender ideology is a patronizing affront to the principles of democracy.  

“The confidence of the Australian eSafety commissioner to censor citizens of Canada on an American platform, shows the truly global nature of the free speech crisis. 

“Speaking up for free speech is critical at this juncture, and we’re proud to be backing Billboard Chris as he does just that.”  

Members of the public are invited to support Chris’s legal case here: https://adfinternational.org/campaign/support-billboard-chris   

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only

Pictured: “Billboard Chris” (Chris Elston); Chris Elston with the ADF International team supporting his case

US State Department: ‘We are monitoring’ prosecution of UK woman in abortion facility ‘buffer zone’ case and ‘are concerned about freedom of expression’ in Britain

Livia Tossici-Bolt holding her sign in the UK
  • Verdict for Livia Tossici-Bolt, Christian woman who faced criminal trial for holding a sign offering consensual conversation in censorial abortion facility ‘buffer zone’ in Bournemouth, will be released on Friday
  • ADF International is supporting her legal defence
  • US State Department: ‘We are concerned about freedom of expression in the United Kingdom… We are monitoring [Dr Tossici-Bolt’s] case’

BOURNEMOUTH (1 April 2025) – A bureau within the US State Department said on Sunday it is “monitoring” the abortion facility “buffer zone” case of a Dorset woman, ahead of the release of her verdict on Friday.

The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, & Labor (DRL), a bureau within the United States Department of State, issued a statement on the case of Livia Tossici-Bolt, 64, on X, saying: “We are concerned about freedom of expression in the United Kingdom… We are monitoring [Dr Tossici-Bolt’s] case.”

Dr Tossici-Bolt faced criminal trial this month for holding a sign that said, “Here to talk, if you want,” in a censorial abortion facility “buffer zone”.

Her verdict will be handed down by District Judge Orla Austin on Friday April 4. ADF International is supporting Dr Tossici-Bolt’s legal defence.

In its post, the State Department bureau said: “U.S.-UK relations share a mutual respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. However, as Vice President Vance has said, we are concerned about freedom of expression in the United Kingdom.

“While recently in the UK, DRL Senior Advisor Sam Samson met with Livia Tossici-Bolt, who faces criminal charges for offering conversation within a legally prohibited ‘buffer zone’ at an abortion clinic. We are monitoring her case. It is important that the UK respect and protect freedom of expression.”

Dr Tossici-Bolt said: “I am grateful to the US State Department for taking note of my case. Great Britain is supposed to be a free country, yet I’ve been dragged through court merely for offering consensual conversation. I’m thankful to ADF International for supporting my legal defence.

“Peaceful expression is a fundamental right—no one should be criminalised for harmless offers to converse.”

She added: “It is tragic to see that the increase of censorship in this country has made the US feel it has to remind us of our shared values and basic civil liberties.

“I’m grateful to the US administration for prioritising the preservation and promotion of freedom of expression and for engaging in robust diplomacy to that end.

“It deeply saddens me that the UK is seen as an international embarrassment when it comes to free speech. My case, involving only a mere invitation to speak, is but one example of the extreme and undeniable state of censorship in Great Britain today.

“It is important that the government actually does respect freedom of expression, as it claims to.”

Responding to DRL’s comment, barrister and Legal Counsel for ADF International Jeremiah Igunnubole said: “The UK’s censorship crisis is the result of a longstanding failure by British politicians to vigilantly protect fundamental rights in the UK, while hypocritically claiming to champion them abroad.

“We cannot consistently claim the UK is a bastion of free speech when law-abiding citizens like Livia are prosecuted for nothing other than peacefully offering to speak to people. What freedom do we have if citizens cannot offer a consensual conversation in a public space?

“Today, authorities are targeting conversations and even silent prayers they say are related to abortion. Tomorrow, it could be any other topic that goes against the mainstream perspective, as defined and policed by those in power. The slippery slope towards tyranny is clear. This is not how free and democratic countries should function.

“True friends do not stand idly by as their friends blindly walk into a ditch. The robust protection of fundamental freedoms has historically formed the basis of the special relationship between the UK and the US—a relationship that’s now needlessly strained due, in large part, to the current censorial trajectory of Britain.

“It is right for the US State Department and JD Vance to warn the UK that censorship is antithetical to freedom, democracy, and societal flourishing.”

Mr Igunnubole added: “Good relations with the US are key for our economic and military security. Criminal prosecutions for silent prayer and offers of consensual conversation are not only illiberal, but also irresponsible.

“The government must act to ensure that what is undoubtedly our most important diplomatic relationship is not put at risk due to an ideological commitment to censorship.”

District Judge Austin, who will hand down Dr Tossici-Bolt’s verdict on Friday, is the same judge who last October found Adam Smith-Connor guilty for silently praying in a “buffer zone”, in a case which Vice President Vance directly mentioned in his Munich Security Conference Speech.

With ADF International’s support, Mr Smith-Connor will appeal his conviction in a July trial.

Rose Docherty’s “buffer zone” case in Scotland

This is not the first time DRL has commented on UK “buffer zone” censorship.

In February, DRL commented on the arrest of 73-year-old Christian grandmother Rose Docherty for holding a sign that read, “Coercion is a crime, here to talk, only if you want,” in a “buffer zone” in Glasgow.

DRL said: “Police in Scotland arrested a woman holding a sign offering to talk to people in a restricted ‘buffer zone.’ Freedom of expression needs to be protected.  We call on governments, whether in Scotland or around the world, to respect freedom of expression for all.”

ADF International is supporting Ms Docherty, who recently rejected a warning sent to her in a letter from the Procurator Fiscal, as it required her to accept her actions were unlawful.

She did not cause harassment, block access to an abortion facility or influence anyone regarding abortion—activities banned in Scotland’s “buffer zones”—but merely exercised her right to freedom of expression, which is protected in national and international law, by offering consensual conversations.

Ms Docherty explained: “I cannot pretend that what I did was unlawful—I merely offered a chat, particularly in the context of anyone experiencing coercion of any kind—an issue firmly on my heart.  

“This is why I will be rejecting the warning I was issued by Scottish authorities, with support from ADF International. It isn’t right to deprive anyone of the right to take up my offer to talk—or to restrict me unfairly from carrying out this peaceful, compassionate action.” 

Reacting to the letter sent by the Procurator Fiscal, Lorcán Price, Irish barrister and Legal Counsel for ADF International, said: “The warning issued by the Scottish authorities in effect demands Rose accept culpability for criminal behaviour. This Christian grandmother stood peacefully, alone, making herself available for a discussion with anyone who wished to speak to her. How can this possibly be outlawed in our society?” 

In his Munich Security Conference speech last month, Vice President JD Vance called out Scotland’s draconian abortion facility “buffer zones”.

The Scottish government last year sent a letter to residents whose houses were in a “buffer zone”, saying: “Activities in a private place (such as a house) within the area between the protected premises and the boundary of a Zone could be an offence if they can be seen or heard within the Zone and are done intentionally or recklessly.”

Green Party MSP Gillian Mackay, who authored the Scottish “buffer zone” law, admitted in an interview following Vice President Vance’s comments that in her view prayer in a private home within a “buffer zone” could be a crime depending “on who’s passing by the window”.

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only

Foreign Censorship on U.S. Social Media Platforms – Australian Case Validates Vance’s Concerns

  • Melbourne Tribunal to hear “monumental” free speech challenge from 31st March-4th April
  • Musk’s “X” and Canadian “Billboard Chris” bringing case against Australian “eSafety Commissioner” for censoring online post criticizing gender ideology
  • VP Vance, Secretary of State Rubio have raised repeated concerns about the impact of censorial foreign governments on American-based social media platforms

MELBOURNE (27 March 2025) – The Administrative Review Tribunal in Melbourne is set to hear a “monumental” free speech case next week, commencing March 31st, as concerns mount worldwide about online censorship.

Canadian internet sensation and children’s safety campaigner “Billboard Chris” (Chris Elston), alongside Elon Musk’s U.S.-based social media platform “X”, will challenge the Australian authorities’ decision to censor an online post criticizing gender ideology across Australia.

The case demonstrates the tangible reality of global censorship concerns raised repeatedly by Vice-President J.D. Vance, both at a Munich Security Conference in February and in a press conference with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

Speaking about free speech restrictions in the context of the UK, Vance said:

“We also know that there have been infringements on free speech that actually affect not just the British — of course what the British do in their own country is up to them — but also affect American technology companies and, by extension, American citizens.”

Speaking recently in Paris, Vance added that while “we want to ensure the internet is a safe place”, restrictions on online content should focus on protecting children from predatory abuse, rather than preventing “a grown man or woman from accessing an opinion that the government thinks is misinformation.”

The actions of the eSafety Commissioner demonstrate a concerning rise in censorship in the digital age – where bureaucracies can subjectively interpret which speech is deemed “offensive” or “wrong”, leading to the curtailment of free speech rights.

Robert Clarke, Director of Advocacy for ADF International, which is backing Elston’s legal defence, said:

“The decision of Australian authorities to prevent Australian citizens from hearing and evaluating information about gender ideology is a patronizing affront to the principles of democracy.

“The confidence of the Australian eSafety commissioner to censor citizens of Canada on an American platform, shows the truly global nature of the free speech crisis.

“Speaking up for free speech is critical at this juncture, and we’re proud to be backing Billboard Chris as he does just that.”

Chris Elston, a.k.a “Billboard Chris”, commented:

“My case is an example of the free speech crisis here in Australia and across the West. More and more, the public is waking up to the fact that puberty blockers are a form of child abuse. Gender ideology can only thrive under censorship – when we are deprived of shining a light on the madness.”

THE CASE: Freedom of online speech in the balance

On 28 February 2024, Elston took to “X” to share a Daily Mail article titled “Kinky secrets of UN trans expert REVEALED”.

The article, and accompanying tweet, criticised the appointment of Australian transgender activist Teddy Cook to a World Health Organization “panel of experts” set to advise on global transgender policy.

Cook complained about the post to Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, who requested that “X” remove the content. The social media platform owned by free speech advocate Elon Musk initially refused, but following a subsequent formal removal order from the Commissioner, later geo-blocked the content in Australia. X has since also filed an appeal against the order at the Administrative Review Tribunal in Melbourne.

Billboard Chris, with the support of ADF International and the Australian Human Rights Law Alliance, and alongside Elon Musk’s “X”, is appealing the violation of his right to peacefully share his convictions. 

The case will be heard in Melbourne for five days on the week beginning March 31st.

Members of the public are invited to support Chris’s legal case here. 

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only

Top human rights court deems Evangelical church’s appeal inadmissible

Breccia di Roma church in Rome, Italy

  • Italian Christian community forced to pay tens of thousands in taxes or make “structural modifications” to their place of worship to satisfy the authorities’ demands that their space look more like “a conventional church”

  • Represented by ADF International, the church had filed an appeal at the European Court of Human Rights, which has rejected the case

Breccia di Roma church in Rome, Italy

Strasbourg/Rome (March 24, 2025) – In a blow to religious freedom, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has ruled that the case of Breccia di Roma, an Evangelical church in Rome, is inadmissible. The church, represented by ADF International, had appealed to the Court after Italian authorities classified its place of worship as a “shop” due to its non-traditional appearance, which led to a demand for around 50,000€ in taxes and fines. 

Despite the church’s argument that the modest architecture of its place of worship does not detract from its use for religious practice and that the Italian Tax Agency’s classification violated its right to worship freely, the ECtHR has decided not to intervene. The decision effectively upholds the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation’s ruling, denying the church the tax exemption granted to other religious buildings in Italy. 

“This ruling is disappointing, as it fails to recognize the right of churches to freely determine the manner of their worship. We continue to believe that the government has no right to dictate the appearance of a place of worship."

- Leonardo De Chirico, president of Breccia di Roma

Court dismissal despite strong legal case 

Even though the church went up to the highest domestic court claiming a violation of its religious freedom, the ECtHR denied hearing the case claiming “non-exhaustion of domestic remedies”. The Court provided no explanation as to why it does not consider the church to have “exhausted domestic remedies,” given that Breccia di Roma has no other domestic avenues left to pursue. The court also rejected the church’s claim of having been unjustly discriminated against, despite two lower instance courts in Italy having ruled in Breccia di Roma’s favor on this matter. The decision is final. Breccia di Roma must now pay tens of thousands in taxes or make “structural modifications” to their place of worship to satisfy the authorities’ demands.  

In recent years, “inadmissibility” has become the most common outcome of any application pending before the ECtHR. The court received 28,800 new applications in 2024, and 34,650 in 2023. At the same time, the court declared 25,990 pending applications inadmissible in 2024, and 31,329 in 2023.  

“It is highly regrettable that Breccia di Roma will not receive justice from the European Court of Human Rights.This religious group was unjustly discriminated against because its chosen place of worship does not look like a conventional church in the eyes of the authorities. The small community is now burdened with thousands of Euros in taxes from which other religious buildings in Italy are exempted."

- Dr. Lidia Rieder, Legal Officer for ADF International, which brought the church’s case before the ECHR

ADF International remains committed to advocating for the protection of religious freedom and ensuring that churches can operate without unnecessary discrimination based on their appearance or practices.

Breccia di Roma can be supported here.  

Case background 

The Evangelical Christian community, Breccia di Roma, which uses a former shop as it’s place of worship, obtained authorization to change the building’s intended commercial use – in part, so that the applicable taxation would align with the religious, i.e. non-commercial, nature of their activities.  

The Italian Tax Agency, however, claimed that the interior architecture of Breccia di Roma’s worship space was not sufficiently religious in appearance. Therefore, it required the church to pay commercial taxes. Despite winning in the lower courts, the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation sided with the authorities. With no further avenues for justice in Italy, the church turned to the European Court of Human Rights, which has now declined to decide their case.   

“We don’t make money —we bring people together closer to Christ. Granted, our building does not match the Great Synagogue, a mosque, or any of the basilicas in Rome. Also, because our resources are limited, we meet in a comparatively unspectacular building. But why would a state punish us for that? Our church is not worse or less spiritual, just because our architecture is different,” De Chirico asserted.    

Further details on the case can be found here. 

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only