TODAY: Dorset retiree to face trial for offering a conversation in abortion “buffer zone”

  • Livia Tossici-Bolt held a sign reading “Here to talk, if you want” near an abortion facility in Bournemouth
  • Retired medical scientist to face trial 5th -6th MARCH; ADF UK supports legal defence
  • U.S. Vice-President J.D. Vance raises repeated concerns about the UK’s “buffer zone” laws – “these ideas are going to destroy Western civilisation”

BOURNEMOUTH (5 March 2025) – A retired medical scientist from Bournemouth will face trial on 5th-6th March following charges relating to her charitable work supporting women in crisis pregnancies.  

Livia Tossici-Bolt, 63, held a sign reading “here to talk, if you want to” near an abortion facility in Bournemouth. Several individuals approached her to take up her offer of a conversation about matters going on in their lives. 

“There’s nothing wrong with two adults engaging in a consensual conversation on the street. I shouldn’t be treated like a criminal just for this.”

- Livia Tossici-Bolt

Local authorities confronted Tossici-Bolt, alleging that she had breached a local abortion “buffer zone”, which bans “expression of approval or disapproval of abortion”. They issued a Fixed Penalty Notice, which Tossici-Bolt refused to pay, on the grounds that she did not breach the terms of the PSPO, and had the right, protected under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act, to offer consensual conversations. 

Tossici-Bolt will face trial at Bournemouth Magistrates’ Court on 5th-6th March 2025. ADF UK are supporting her legal defence. 

“There’s nothing wrong with two adults engaging in a consensual conversation on the street. I shouldn’t be treated like a criminal just for this,” said Livia Tossici-Bolt, whose legal defence is being supported by ADF UK.

International concerns over Britain's censorship

Speaking to Sean Hannity on Fox, U.S. Vice-President J.D. Vance yesterday listed the UK’s notorious “buffer zone” rules as an example of an idea which could “destroy Western civilisation.“

Referencing egregious examples of authoritarian censorship across Europe last month at the Munich security conference, Vance highlighted the “most concerning” case of Adam Smith-Connor – the army veteran and father of two in Britain who was convicted in November 2024 for praying silently, for a few minutes, on a public space across the road from the Bournemouth abortion facility, where a “buffer zone” was enforced.  

Reflecting on his concerns for Europe, the Vice-President said:  

“…perhaps most concerning, I look to our very dear friends, the United Kingdom, where the backslide away from conscience rights has placed the basic liberties of religious Britons, in particular in the crosshairs.  

“A little over two years ago, the British government charged Adam Smith Connor, a 51 year old physiotherapist and an Army veteran, with the heinous crime of standing 50m from an abortion clinic and silently praying for three minutes, not obstructing anyone, not interacting with anyone, just silently praying on his own.” 

Speaking on GB News Podcast “Choppers Politics” this month, Michael Gove said: “It is wrong to say that someone cannot pray – silently – because you have a particular view on abortion…For me, free speech is as close to a fundamental principle as any. And so is freedom of worship.” 

Jeremiah Igunnubole, Legal Counsel for ADF International, supporting Livia’s defence, said: 

“Under far-reaching and vaguely-written rules, we have seen volunteers like Livia criminalised simply for offering to talk; and others dragged through courts for praying, even silently, in their minds.   

The principle of freedom of thought and speech must be defended both within and outside “buffer zones”. It’s unthinkable that as real crime is mounting, policing time and resources are being expended on peaceful individuals like Livia who simply, and peacefully, offer to engage in consensual conversation. What kind of society does that?” commented Jeremiah Igunnubole, legal counsel for ADF UK, who are supporting Tossici-Bolt’s legal defence.

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

PICTURED: Livia Tossici-Bolt; ADF UK Legal Counsel Jeremiah Igunnubole

The Finnish Line: The Supreme Case of Päivi Räsänen After 6 Years

Päivi Räsänen’s case has been ongoing for 6 years. Now her fate rests at the Finnish Supreme Court

A Nation Watches as One of Its Most Respected Leaders Goes to the Supreme Court for Speaking Her Faith

Päivi Räsänen’s case has been ongoing for 6 years. Now her fate rests at the Finnish Supreme Court

The case of Finnish MP Päivi Räsänen is more than a legal battle; it’s a test of Europe’s commitment to democratic values.

As one of Finland’s most respected politicians, Päivi now faces the Finnish Supreme Court for peacefully expressing her Christian beliefs online.

Her story is a powerful reminder of what it means to be a Christian in today’s pervasive culture of censorship. It also demonstrates unwavering faith in the face of prosecution and punishment for so-called “hate speech”.

ADF International is proud to stand alongside Päivi as her legal ordeal reaches its 6th year.

A Life of Conviction

Päivi was still a very young girl when her parents decided she could go to the church in their small village of Konnunsuo, just inside the Finnish border from Russia. It’s a region known for hundreds of beautiful lakes and one less beautiful prison, where Päivi’s father worked, tending the gardens. While he and his wife were not Christians, they respected the faith and didn’t feel it would do little Päivi any harm to learn a bit of the Bible.

Time would prove them both wrong and right about that, but as a child, Päivi was fascinated with the things she learned in those Sunday morning classes.

“It was very, very affecting and important for me,” she remembers, nearly six decades later. “I was about 5 or 6 years old, and I remember well, even at that age, those talks the teachers shared with us about Jesus.”

Biblical concepts like grace and sin, salvation and judgment, she says, “were so concrete. Even as a small child, you have to think about these issues. And I remember praying that I would have my sins forgiven, and that Jesus would come into my life.”

How seriously Päivi took her new conversion became clear shortly afterward, when the prison warden came riding along the road by her family’s house on his bicycle. She urgently waved for him to stop. He did, looking down into her big, earnest, little-girl eyes to ask what was wrong.

“Do you love Jesus?” she asked. “You can’t get to heaven if you do not know Him.”

Embarrassed, the warden looked around and saw Päivi’s mother, standing nearby. “You should take your baby out of that Sunday school today!” he yelled. “Before she loses her mind!”

If her mother was concerned about her husband’s boss’s opinion, she didn’t show it. Päivi stayed in Sunday school. But it was by no means the last time Päivi spoke up for her faith. Or drew sharp opposition for doing so.

The Start of Päivi’s Career

Although she went to the University of Helsinki to study medicine, Päivi spent at least as much time there sharing her faith. For five years, she led a student missionary group in weekly door-to-door visits around campus, drawing other young people into discussions about moral values and cheerfully engaging them with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

“It was an important time in my life,” she remembers, “an important schooling. Every week, I was discussing quite difficult issues with students from different backgrounds and areas of study. I had to think very thoroughly about how my faith stands — how the Bible stands — in the face of these difficult questions. I learned to discuss ideas. I learned to debate.”

Her extracurricular evangelism also changed her life in another way. Twice during those years, Päivi joined other Christian students from all over Finland on mission trips to London, led by a tall, smiling young man named Niilo Räsänen.

He and Päivi took a shine to each other, began to date, and soon were married. They went on to raise four daughters and a son, as Niilo became a pastor in the Evangelical Lutheran Church and head of one of the denomination’s seminaries.

Päivi, meanwhile, went into general practice medicine. She quickly developed a reputation as both an excellent doctor and a thoughtful, outspoken defender of life.

“I had decided already during my studies that I would not end the life of a child in the womb,” she says. In her spare time, she wrote books and pamphlets on the subject. That led to television and radio appearances, where she drew on those debate skills she’d honed back in college. Her strong, winsome arguments began to attract wide attention. People asked if she was interested in standing for office — perhaps campaigning for a seat in Parliament.

“At first I refused,” she says. “I thought it was not my place.” But people continued to urge her to run … and one of those urging was her husband.

“Actually, I think I was the first,” Niilo says. “But she wasn’t interested.” One day, though, he drove her through Helsinki, past the building where Parliament met. He pointed at the building. “Look at your future workplace,” he told her.

The 1990s brought a severe economic recession to Finland. Päivi’s patients were hit hard by what was happening and often poured out their worries to her.

“I could see a lot of problems in people’s lives,” she says — problems born of what was happening in her country’s politics and culture. “I thought I would like to try and influence the society and improve the welfare of the people. To not only give them medicine, but to try to heal the consequences of these problems.”

A person in Parliament could do that, she decided. The next time someone suggested she stand for office, Päivi was ready. “I answered, ‘Yes.’”

Päivi as a Parliamentarian

Päivi Räsänen has served continually in the Finnish Parliament since 1995. For 11 of those years, she acted as chairman of the Christian Democrats, a party she chose for its support of her Christian values and unswerving opposition to abortion. For four years, she also served as her nation’s minister of the interior, overseeing internal national security and migration issues.

Päivi reading her Bible at parliament

“I have felt, very deeply, that this has been my calling,” she says. “I’ve been happy to have the opportunity to influence our society, our country, and to try to make better living conditions for people, especially families and children and the elderly.

“In some ways, it is very similar to working as a doctor. People come to you to talk about their problems, and then you try to find some solution. That’s been my work in Parliament.” She’s learned, she says, that “politics is one way to show love to your neighbour.”

You might think that attitude would have enhanced Päivi’s interactions with Finland’s religious leaders — “church affairs” was another aspect of her responsibilities as minister of the interior, and her work brought her into contact with most of the prominent clerics of her country.

Still, even knowing these leaders so well, she was stunned to learn, in the summer of 2019, that the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland — her own denomination and the one in which her husband served as a pastor — had pledged its full support for an upcoming Helsinki Pride event.

“I knew that our church at that time was already quite divided,” Päivi says, “and there was a lot of progressive liberal thinking among our pastors.” Still, “that the whole church leadership had decided to support the event, publicly and financially, was a strong disappointment to me — and to many other Christians.”

Many friends confided to her their intention to resign from the church. Päivi seriously considered joining them. “I was praying, ‘What should I do now? Should I leave the church, too?’”

The Tweet That Sparked a Trial

But, on her knees, her Bible open before her, “I received a very clear vision,” Päivi says, “that now was not my time to jump out of this sinking boat — that I should try to wake people up. I was especially worried about our young people losing their trust in the Bible, with the leadership of the church teaching something so much against what the Bible teaches.”

“What the Bible teaches.” After a moment, she reached for her cell phone, turned to Romans 1:24-27, and snapped a photo. She pulled up her X (formerly Twitter) account, attached the picture, called it to the attention of the Evangelical Lutheran leadership, and added one simple question:

“How does the doctrine of the church, the Bible, fit together with the fact that shame and sin are raised as a matter of pride?”

She pressed “Tweet.”

And her life changed, forever.

Explain this word, 'sin', she was asked.

Päivi’s communique thoroughly rocked “the boat” and woke up everyone in it. Including Päivi.

A few weeks after she had posted the tweet, she opened a newspaper and read — to her astonishment — that local police had received a complaint about her message and were investigating. Their evidence would determine whether the nation’s chief prosecutor would bring her to trial for her beliefs.

“At first, I didn’t believe it,” Päivi says. “I thought, ‘No, no, this must be from a summer intern who doesn’t know what he’s saying.’” But a call to her local precinct confirmed that officers were indeed looking into the matter. When could she come in and speak with them?

Over the next few months, Päivi would be required to sit for a total of 13 hours of police interrogation.

“It was an absurd situation,” she remembers, “sitting there in a small room in the station, being interrogated about my Christian beliefs.” The policeman asking questions kept an open Bible on the table between them. He pointed at it as he probed her theology: “What is Romans about?” “Tell me about the first chapter.” “Walk me through Genesis.” “Explain this word, ‘sin.’”

Päivi found the whole thing almost laughable. “Just a few years before, I was the [cabinet] minister in charge of police, and now I was sitting here, being interrogated.” But the people of Finland understood what was happening: one of the most well-known political figures in their country was being detained at police headquarters for quoting Scripture to bishops.

“Someone joked on social media that maybe we were going to have Bible studies at the police station,” Päivi says, smiling. “But … these discussions were very good. I had the opportunity to [share with] that policeman very thoroughly the teachings of the Bible, from Genesis to the message of the Gospel … because he asked me to.

“Do you really want to hear this?” she asked him. “Because this has been such an important book to me. When I read it, I understand the message of the Gospel: that Jesus has died for my sins.”

“It was lovely,” she says, smiling, “telling that to the policeman.”

She left an impression. “If it were up to me,” he told her, after their last discussion, “you wouldn’t be sitting here. I hope we don’t have to meet like this again.”

Charged With “Hate Speech”

They didn’t. But Päivi had to wait more than a year to learn that the Finnish prosecutor general was formally charging her with three counts of “agitation against a minority group” — one, for publicly voicing her opinion on marriage and human sexuality in a 2004 pamphlet distributed at her church; two, for comments she made on the same topics on a 2019 radio show; and three, for the tweet directed at the leadership of her church.

Under Finland’s criminal code, “agitation against a minority group” falls under the section of “war crimes and crimes against humanity” punishable by tens of thousands of dollars in fines — and up to two years in prison.

Päivi knows better than most the penalty for breaking this particular law. After all, she was a member of the Finnish Parliament when it unanimously adopted these changes to the country’s criminal code 13 years ago.

“In Finland, as in all European countries, you have a law that prohibits so-called ‘hate speech,’” says Elyssa Koren, legal communications director for ADF International. Like most such laws, she says, this one carries with it the possibility of criminal charges. That’s not all the laws have in common.

These laws are often presented, Koren says, as a way “to reduce social tensions, to curb hostility, to foster conditions of peace. It’s a very reductive way of looking at societal problems … the idea that if you have less ‘hate speech,’ you’ll have less hate.” Unfortunately, she says, the laws are also “vaguely worded, overly broad, and don’t define ‘hate.’”

“‘Hate,’ really, is just in the eye of the beholder,” she says. “And what happens is what we’ve seen with this case: people are prosecuted for perfectly peaceful expression in the name of preventing ‘hate.’” When the law was passed in the Finnish Parliament, “nobody was much aware what the consequences would be. Päivi’s case is the litmus test for how the law will be applied to religious speech.”

Päivi says she sees now that she and her colleagues underestimated the implications of the law they all voted for. Many serving with her in the Finnish Parliament, she says, believe that “if I were to be convicted, then we would have to change the law.

“I’m not the only one in Finland who has spoken and taught about these issues,” she says. “There are thousands and thousands of similar writings. If my writings are banned, then [many] sermons and interviews and writings would be in danger. If I were convicted, it really would start a time of persecution among Christians.”

Which, unfortunately, seems to be the idea.

“‘Hate,’ really, is just in the eye of the beholder.”

Päivi Räsänen

Faith Under Fire

Päivi and her co-defendant — Bishop Juhana Pohjola, who is charged with publishing the 2004 pamphlet on marriage and sexuality Päivi shared with her church — were stunned when the prosecutor opened her case against them by showing Bible verses on a courtroom screen. Her ignorance of Christian theology was palpable, and she made no secret of her determination to see Päivi and Bishop Pohjola punished for views so contrary to contemporary secular morality.

“It’s become clear,” Koren says, “that they are not prosecuting Päivi Räsänen … they’re really prosecuting the Bible and Christian beliefs at a very high level. What’s at stake is the fundamental question of whether people — particularly people in the public eye — have the freedom to voice their Christian convictions in the public space.”

“What the prosecutor essentially is calling for,” says Paul Coleman, Executive Director of ADF International, “is the criminalization of the orthodox Christian position on fundamental Christian doctrine regarding marriage, sexuality, sin, and so forth. It’s shocking to see such brazen anti-Christian legal argumentation within a criminal context.”

Even more unsettling, Coleman says, is the fact that “there’s nothing unique about the situation in Finland. It doesn’t have worse law than anywhere else. It has a better legal system than most places. If this can happen in Finland, it can happen in any Western country.”

In fact, he says, “the same censorial sentiments exist in the U.S. — at all heights of power. On almost every college campus. In all of the major companies, particularly Big Tech. They exist in much of the U.S. political system and in the mindset of many law professors.

That line — between what we’re seeing take place in Finlans and what could very soon happen in the U.S. — is far smaller than most people realize. Or want to admit.”

A Ruling Due Before the Supreme Court

In March 2022, the Helsinki District Court unanimously acquitted Päivi and Bishop Pohjola of all charges, saying, “It is not for the district court to interpret biblical concepts.” A month later, the prosecutor appealed that ruling — something she is allowed to do under Finnish law. In November 2023, the Helsinki Court of Appeal confirmed the lower court’s acquittal.

The prosecutor then appealed both decisions to the Finnish Supreme Court, which has agreed to hear the case.

What the prosecution has secured, Koren says, “is another year or two during which Päivi is still under this pressure. Her reputation and her integrity as a civil servant are clouded by the fact that she continues to be criminally prosecuted for her peaceful expression.”

Still, Niilo says, “We don’t worry. Whatever happens, we will take it as God’s will and see what comes next.”

“It’s remarkable,” Päivi says, “how God uses this.” From the beginning, she says, “I had a deep, deep feeling this was in God’s hands, that He was opening a door. There’ve been so many opportunities to testify about Jesus … before these courts, in front of police officers, even to those who vehemently disagree with me. It’s given me a lot of joy.

“I’ve received messages from people who’ve told me that, as they’ve followed the trials and listened to my interviews, they’ve started to read the Bible and pray. They’ve found Christ.

“I got a call from a 22-year-old man who told me that he knew almost nothing about Christianity but was listening to a radio interview where I said, ‘If you want to know Jesus, you can pray, He will come into your life.’ He has been a Christian now for over two years. Jesus came into his life.”

As a lawyer who feels called to defend freedom of religion and speech,” Coleman says, “it’s been the great privilege of my career to be [able] to support and defend Päivi. I’m not exaggerating by saying she is, ultimately, the reason why we exist.

“She’s tough. Really tough. Yet … always smiling, always kind. Over the past five years, I’ve sat through two trials with her, sat around her kitchen table, seen her in every context in between. She’s just such an unbelievably authentic person. The same in every context, whether being cross-examined for her faith, or hosting us for dinner after the hearing.”

During one hearing, Coleman says, “the prosecutor — who, bear in mind, has said horrible things about her and wants to put her in jail — was visibly unwell. And, at one of the breaks, Päivi just went over to sit with her, ask how she was doing, connect with her on a human level.

“She wasn’t doing it for the cameras,” he says. “No one saw it. But I thought, ‘What a remarkable person this is.’ It’s just such a privilege to be called as a ministry to stand alongside her and say, ‘We’ve got your back.’”

“I have received much more during this legal process than I have lost,” Päivi says. “When I was young, I read from those texts where Jesus says that, when they take you in front of courts and kings, you’ll be His witness, and He will provide what to say. I could never have believed I would ever be in this kind of situation. But I think it’s increased my trust in God.

“What I’ve found is that what God has promised, He is faithful [to do]. He really works as He has said. Jesus is alive, and He stands by His word. And He is good.”

Conclusion: The Assault on Freedom of Expression

At the heart of Päivi’s case is a growing trend across Europe: the weaponization of vague and subjective “hate speech” laws to suppress peaceful expression. The implications of this case extend far beyond Finland. What does this mean for ordinary European citizens if a respected parliamentarian can be prosecuted for a tweet?

International law, and that of Finland, guarantees freedom of speech and religion, yet cases like Päivi’s show how these rights are increasingly being violated or reinterpreted to serve ideological ends. If she were to be convicted, it would mark a dangerous shift towards state control over individual freedoms.

The principle at stake is not whether one agrees with Päivi’s beliefs. It’s whether a European democracy can still allow space for diverse opinions in the public square. Once the state decides which views are acceptable and which are not, the door opens to widespread censorship.

Europe’s commitment to democracy demands better. The Finnish Supreme Court now has a decision to make, and the world is watching. Time will tell, but one thing is certain: Päivi Räsänen will not be silenced.

ADF International is honoured to stand by her side, just as we’ve done for the last six years.

Scottish health authority suspend American midwifery student over pro-life Facebook posts

Picture: Marion McKinnon Photography
  • NHS Fife suspended placement of U.S. citizen and Edinburgh Napier midwifery student who raised objection to performing an abortion in Facebook comment  
  • Decision violates right of medical staff and students to free speech and conscientious objection, says ADF UK, providing legal support  
  • U.S. Vice-President Vance raises concerns to Keir Starmer in Washington about UK “infringements on freedom of speech” which affect American citizens 

DUNDEE (28 February 2025) - A midwifery student and mother of three resident in Scotland but from the USA was suspended from her training placement with NHS Fife over comments on a private Facebook forum explaining her conscientious objection to performing abortions.  

“It is concerning that an NHS health board would be reluctant to welcome a student who holds certain beliefs regarding the significance of unborn human life.”

- Sara Spencer, who was suspended for her pro-life Facebook comments

Sara Spencer, 30, was suspended and subjected to a fitness-to-practise investigation as a result of comments made on a private midwifery Facebook group in which she responded to a post asking: “Do midwives have anything to do with abortions, and can they refuse to take part in carrying them out because of their beliefs?” 

Commenting on her treatment, Sara Spencer said:   

“It’s well-known that medical professionals in the UK have a right to conscientiously object to performing an abortion.   

“As a student, I expected to be able to freely engage in discussion among my peers about the grounds for my conscientious objection, and to respectfully debate matters of medical law, ethics, and the philosophy of midwifery care – matters which lie at the heart of our profession. 

“I was shocked by NHS Fife’s response to my expression of legally protected beliefs. It is concerning that an NHS health board would be reluctant to welcome a student who holds certain beliefs regarding the significance of unborn human life.”  

Vance raises concerns over UK impinging on free speech of American citizens

During Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s visit to the White House yesterday, Vice President J.D. Vance highlighted concerns about “infringements on freedom of speech” in the UK, “…which also affect American technology companies and by extension, American citizens”. 

The Prime Minister responded, “we’ve had free speech for a very, very long time in the United Kingdom, and it will last for a very, very long time.”  

Keir Starmer assured U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance that “certainly we wouldn’t want to reach across U.S. citizens, and we don’t, and that’s absolutely right.” 

A right to engage in discussion 

Spencer contributed to a Facebook discussion by noting that there was “a right to refuse to take part [and the] law protects [individuals’] statutory right of conscientious objection” and that she would always personally object to participating in “killing” an unborn child.    

 As a result of complaints about her comments, Spencer was summoned to a meeting with her line manager at NHS Fife, who subsequently turned the matter over to Edinburgh Napier University, which initiated a Fitness to Practise investigation for a) bringing the profession or the University into disrepute b) conducting herself in a manner “detrimental to the safety, dignity, and wellbeing and personal and/or professional reputation of others” c) misusing social media and d) conducting herself in a manner falling below the expectations of the student’s relevant Professional Code. 

 Against the recommendation of the Fitness to Practise officer handling Spencer’s case, NHS Fife suspended Spencer’s placement for the duration of the investigation.  

 ”Sara’s career has been negatively impacted by a cultural prejudice against people with pro-life opinions – present both at her university, and in her workplace.   

 ”It’s clear that, while committed to a number of diversity policies, universities across the country have struggled to uphold true diversity of thought – punishing students who peacefully express their own ideas. Sara’s story points to a need for legislation which reaffirms freedom of speech in these learning environments, if the reputational standards of Scottish universities are to remain intact,” said Jeremiah Igunnubole, Legal Counsel for ADF UK, who supported Spencer.  

With legal support from ADF UK, Sara was subsequently cleared of all allegations, with the university finding “no case to answer”. NHS Fife strongly objected to this outcome, but changed its position following correspondence from the university.    

Freedom of conscience examined by ScotGov abortion law review

 “It should be considered entirely natural and expected that a midwife, focused on delivering life into the world, may have concerns about abortion. It’s for this reason that our laws protect freedom of conscience for all medical professionals, who should never be compelled to act in a way they consider harmful.  

 “The Scottish Government are currently undertaking a review of our nation’s abortion law, including with regard to conscientious objection, led by a panel of “experts” – many of whom have had a career within or around the abortion industry. Sara’s experience should sound an alarm bell about the need to reaffirm freedom of conscience across all public health boards,” commented Lois McLatchie Miller, Scottish Spokesperson for ADF UK.   

Despite being cleared of any wrongdoing, Spencer’s professors at Edinburgh Napier University have continued to issue warnings to her about her social media use, referring to Spencer’s comments regarding her pro-life beliefs as “inappropriate.” 

With support from ADF UK, Spencer is now seeking acknowledgement of the rights to both conscientious objection and freedom of expression of protected beliefs from NHS Fife, as well as assurances that they will not discriminate against those students and professionals who express pro-life views in the future.  

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

PICTURED: Sara Spencer (photo credit: Marion McKinnon Photography); Lois McLatchie Miller; Jeremiah Igunnubole

GOVE: “It is wrong to say that someone cannot pray silently” 

  • UK faces mounting backlash against silent prayer prosecutions as a result of abortion “buffer zones” 
  • J.D. Vance highlights “infringements on free speech” during Starmer’s trip to Washington

Rt. Hon. Michael Gove speaking to Chopper’s Political Podcast on GB News. Clip begins 29:52, full episode available here.

LONDON (28th February 2025) – Speaking to Christopher Hope on Chopper’s Politics Podcast, former justice secretary Michael Gove has condemned the prosecution of individuals simply for praying silently near abortion facilities in Great Britain. 

“It is wrong to say that someone cannot pray – silently – because you have a particular view on abortion... "

- Rt. Hon. Michael Gove

““It is wrong to say that someone cannot pray – silently – because you have a particular view on abortion…For me, free speech is as close to a fundamental principle as any. And so is freedom of worship,” commented Gove.

While the current Spectator Editor was clear that “genuine intimidation” was unacceptable, he expressed incredulity that prayer should be considered a crime in this context, adding “prayer…that’s at the foundation of the country…I’m not saying that everyone should believe, but you can’t understand Britain without understanding our Judeo-Christian tradition…” 

“Freedom of conscience and freedom of religion are fundamental freedoms,” he concluded. 

Jeremiah Igunnubole, Legal Counsel for ADF International, supporting the legal defense of Adam Smith-Connor and others prosecuted for praying inside “buffer zones”, responded:

“The policing of people’s very thoughts in “buffer zones” is the most extreme example of censorship across the West. While crime festers on the streets of England, it’s unbelievable that police time and resources are focused on criminalising peaceful Christians, who simply want to pray.

“Nobody can deny that two-tier policing is a problem here; nobody can deny that we are riding roughshod over freedom of speech and of thought. I thank Michael Gove, VP Vance and the many other voices who are issuing this wake-up call – we must restore basic standards of human rights.”

U.S. call out Britain for silent prayer crackdown

The comments surface as Keir Starmer concludes his meeting with U.S. President Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance, who in yesterday’s press conference referred to “infringements on free speech” taking place in the UK which the world leaders would “discuss at lunch”.

Earlier this month, J.D. Vance called out the UK’s censorial “buffer zones” at the Munich Security Conference. 

Listing egregious examples of authoritarian censorship across Europe, Vance highlighted the “most concerning” case of Adam Smith-Connor – the army veteran and father of two in Britain who was convicted in November 2024 for praying silently, for a few minutes, on a public space across the road from an abortion facility, where a “buffer zone” was enforced. 

Reflecting on his concerns for Europe, the Vice-President said: 

“…perhaps most concerning, I look to our very dear friends, the United Kingdom, where the backslide away from conscience rights has placed the basic liberties of religious Britons, in particular in the crosshairs. 

“A little over two years ago, the British government charged Adam Smith Connor, a 51 year old physiotherapist and an Army veteran, with the heinous crime of standing 50m from an abortion clinic and silently praying for three minutes, not obstructing anyone, not interacting with anyone, just silently praying on his own.” 

Prayer in Scottish Homes in Question

The Vice-President also raised concerns about a “buffer zone” law in Scotland which could even impact freedom to pray in one’s own home.  

This week, the architect of the law – Green Party MSP Gillian Mackay – conceded to the BBC that prayer with clasped hands could be a crime, “depending on who’s passing by the window”.  

The same MSP had accused J.D. Vance of spreading “misinformation” that private prayer in one’s home within 200m of an abortion facility could be a crime in Scotland. 

Gillian Mackay, interviewed on BBC “Scotcast” podcast this week. Full episode available on BBC iPlayer, clip begins 24.07

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

Pictured: Adam Smith-Connor; Jeremiah Igunnubole, ADF International

U.S. Vice President Vance: “Concerning” British silent prayer conviction shows free speech is “in retreat”

  • U.S. President J.D. Vance has called out UK authorities for prosecuting an army veteran for his silent prayers near an abortion facility
  • Smith-Connor “overwhelmingly thankful” for support from the Vice President as he prepares to appeal his conviction in July, with support from ADF International 

MUNICH (14 February 2025) – “Free speech, I fear, is in retreat”, said U.S. Vice-President J.D. Vance in an address to world leaders at a security conference in Munich today. 

Listing egregious examples of authoritarian censorship across Europe, Vance highlighted the “most concerning” case of Adam Smith-Connor – the army veteran and father of two in Britain who was convicted in November 2024 for praying silently, for a few minutes, on a public space across the road from an abortion facility, where a “buffer zone” was enforced.

Reflecting on his concerns for Europe, the Vice-President said:

“…perhaps most concerning, I look to our very dear friends, the United Kingdom, where the backslide away from conscience rights has placed the basic liberties of religious Britons, in particular in the crosshairs.

“A little over two years ago, the British government charged Adam Smith Connor, a 51 year old physiotherapist and an Army veteran, with the heinous crime of standing 50m from an abortion clinic and silently praying for three minutes, not obstructing anyone, not interacting with anyone, just silently praying on his own.”

“I'm overwhelmingly thankful to Vice President Vance for raising my plight in front of world leaders.Nobody should be criminalised for their prayers, their mere thoughts."

- Adam Smith-Connor, convicted for praying silently in his head

In November 2022, Smith-Connor was confronted by officers who asked “what is the nature of your prayer?”, on a public green within a large “buffer zone” – an area covering several streets in the town – in which authorities have banned various expressions of pro-life or Christian belief, including through offering help to women in crisis pregnancies, or praying. 

Read the full text of the Public Spaces Protection Order here.

You are currently viewing a placeholder content from YouTube. To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.

More Information
Unblock content Accept required service and unblock content

Adam was later charged, prosecuted, and convicted for his prayers at Poole Magistrates Court in October 2024. With support from ADF International, he is appealing his conviction.

The UK government has since nationalised “buffer zones”, banning “influence” within 150m of every abortion facility in the country.

 Upon hearing the words of the Vice President, Adam Smith-Connor said:

“I’m overwhelmingly thankful to Vice President Vance for raising my plight in front of world leaders. Nobody should be criminalised for their prayers, their mere thoughts – this case has exposed the UK authorities in front of the world as they allow “thought police” to prosecute peaceful, innocent people for what’s going on in their minds. 

“With support from ADF International, I will be appealing my ruling in July and hope for justice to be restored. Silent prayers are not a crime – not here, not anywhere.” 

Jeremiah Igunnubole, Legal Counsel for ADF International, supporting Adam’s legal defence, said:

“The policing of people’s very thoughts in “buffer zones” is the most extreme example of censorship across the West. While crime festers on the streets of England, it’s unbelievable that police time and resources are focused on criminalising peaceful Christians, who simply want to pray.

“Nobody can deny that two-tier policing is a problem here; nobody can deny that we are riding roughshod over freedom of speech and of thought. I thank VP Vance for issuing this wake-up call to our government –  we must restore basic standards of human rights.”

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

Pictured: Adam Smith-Connor, Jeremiah Igunnubole

“Litmus Test” Court Case Against Government Censorship of Musk’s “X” to be Heard Next Month, Australia

Billboard Chris' case will be heard in Australia in March

  • As Australia prepares for a national puberty blocker review, a court battle ensues regarding censorship of voices opposed to gender ideology 

  • “X” post highlighting unsuitability of transgender activist serving on WHO “panel of experts” currently geo-blocked in Australia 

  • Musk’s “X” and Canadian internet star “Billboard Chris” to bring case against Australian “e-Safety Commissioner” over censored post, March 31st  

Billboard Chris' case will be heard in Australia in March

MELBOURNE (13 February 2025) – As Australia faces a significant review into the use of so-called “gender-affirming care” on children, including through the administration of toxic “puberty blockers”, the government is preparing to face court for censoring critics of gender ideology and its harm on children. 

Chris Elston, known as Billboard Chris, a Canadian father of two, took to “X” (formerly Twitter) on 28th February 2024 to share a Daily Mail article titled “Kinky secrets of a UN trans expert REVEALED”.

"This is a serious issue with real world implications, and we need to be able to discuss it."."

- Chris Elston (a.k.a. "Billboard Chris")

The article, and accompanying tweet, criticised the suitability of Australian transgender activist Teddy Cook to be appointed 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 Commission, later geo-blocked the content in Australia. X has since also filed an appeal against the order at the Administrative Appeals 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 on the week beginning March 31st. 

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

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

“No child has ever been born in the wrong body. As a father, I have grave concerns about the impact of harmful gender ideology on our children’s wellbeing. This reality is being increasingly recognised around the world, with government after government ordering a review into the use of toxic puberty blockers. This is a serious issue with real world implications for families across the globe and we need to be able to discuss it. 

“Children struggling with distress regarding their sex deserve better than ‘guidelines’ written by activists who only want to push them in one direction,” said Billboard Chris, engaging in a legal battle for free speech with support from ADF International. 

Ahead of the court date, Robert Clarke, Director of Advocacy for ADF International, who is serving as part of Billboard Chris’s legal team, said: 

“This significant legal showdown with Australian authorities represents a litmus test for free speech in a world seeing increasing push back against global censorship.  

“We’re used to hearing about governments silencing or punishing citizens for their ‘wrong’ speech in parts of the world with strict blasphemy laws – but now, from Australia, to Mexico, to across the EU, we see Western governments increasingly take authoritarian steps to shut down views they don’t like, often by branding them as “offensive”, “hateful”, or “misinformation.”  

“In a free society, ideas should be challenged with ideas, not state censorship. For years, Chris has been speaking an important truth to which many in Australia are now waking up – children cannot consent to puberty blockers.  

We’re proud to stand with Billboard Chris in defending the right to live and speak the truth.” 

You are currently viewing a placeholder content from YouTube. To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.

More Information
Unblock content Accept required service and unblock content

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

Pictured: Chris Elston (“Billboard Chris”); Elston with the ADF International team supporting his legal defence; Robert Clarke, Director of Advocacy for ADF International

Dorset retiree faces trial for offering a conversation, amidst fears over “two-tier policing” 

  • Livia Tossici-Bolt held a sign reading “Here to talk, if you want to” near an abortion facility in Bournemouth
  • Retired medical scientist to face trial 5th -6th MARCH; ADF UK supports legal defence
  • Christians raise concerns about “two-tier policing”

BOURNEMOUTH (6 February 2025) – A retired medical scientist from Bournemouth will face trial on 6th March following charges relating to her charitable work supporting women in crisis pregnancies.

Livia Tossici-Bolt, 63, held a sign reading “here to talk, if you want to” near an abortion facility in Bournemouth. Several individuals approached her to take up her offer of a conversation about matters going on in their lives.

“There’s nothing wrong with two adults engaging in a consensual conversation on the street. I shouldn’t be treated like a criminal just for this.”

- Livia Tossici-Bolt

Local authorities confronted Tossici-Bolt, alleging that she had breached a local abortion “buffer zone”, which bans “expression of approval or disapproval of abortion”. They issued a Fixed Penalty Notice, which Tossici-Bolt refused to pay, on the grounds that she did not breach the terms of the PSPO, and had the right, protected under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act, to offer consensual conversations. 

Tossici-Bolt will face trial at Bournemouth Magistrates’ Court on 6th March 2025. ADF UK are supporting her legal defence.  

“There’s nothing wrong with offering help. There’s nothing wrong with two adults engaging in a consensual conversation on the street. I shouldn’t be treated like a criminal just for this,” said Livia Tossici-Bolt, whose legal defence is being supported by ADF UK. 

Right to conversation, and silent thought, on trial

In 2023, the UK government passed legislation in the Public Order Act to enforce censorial buffer zones around all abortion facilities, banning any form of “influence of a person’s decision to access, provide or facilitate the provision of abortion services.” 

Adam Smith-Connor, convicted for praying silently in a "buffer zone"

CPS Guidance released alongside the national legislation, which came into force in October 2024, explains that silent prayer is “not necessarily” a crime; rather, that criminal actions must be “overt” to meet the threshold. 

 Yet, in November 2024, Christian army veteran Adam Smith-Connor was convicted for praying silently in his mind for a few minutes on public space across the road from the abortion facility in Bournemouth, where a local “buffer zone” had been enacted via a “Public Spaces Protection Order”. With support from ADF UK, he is appealing his conviction in July. 

Concerns over "two-tier policing"

As a result of the arrests over silent prayer, Christians have raised concern about “two-tier policing” taking place in the UK – something which the Home Office have dismissed in a leaked memo as a “right-wing extremist narrative”.

This month, it was reported that shoplifting crimes have increased by 25% in the past year. Last year, it emerged that knife crime in the UK has increased by 80% in the past decade. Volunteers have questioned the focus of resources on clamping down on silent prayer, rather than tangible crimes.

Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, who was seen being arrested for her silent prayers in a viral video in 2022, said:

“The Home Office’s abrasive and outright dismissal of widespread concerns about “two-tier policing” runs contrary to the experience of countless everyday British people.

I have been arrested multiple times, faced an intrusive police investigation, and dragged into court – simply for standing silently on a public street nearby an abortion clinic, praying, imperceptibly, in the privacy of my mind. Meanwhile, how many true criminals roam the streets, unchecked? How many of the perpetrators of the grooming gangs were left unaccountable for their violent and despicable actions towards children?”

Jeremiah Igunnubole, Legal Counsel for ADF UK, said:

“Under far-reaching and vaguely-written rules, we have seen volunteers like Livia criminalised simply for offering conversations to those in need; and others dragged through courts for praying, even silently, in their minds. 

The principle of freedom of thought and speech must be defended both within and outside “buffer zones”. It’s unthinkable that as real crime is mounting, policing time and resources are being expended on peaceful individuals like Livia who simply and peacefully offered conversations. No genuinely free and democratic society criminalises it citizens for exercising their right to freedom of speech, especially when such speech is nothing more than a harmless and consensual conversation,” commented Jeremiah Igunnubole, legal counsel for ADF UK, who are supporting Tossici-Bolt’s legal defence.  

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

PICTURED: Liviai Tossici-Bolt; ADF UK Legal Counsel Jeremiah Igunnubole

European Politicians Call for Social Media Censorship and Attack X and Meta’s Free Speech Policies as ‘Threat to Democracy’

  • X-owner Elon Musk accused of being in ‘conspiracy’ with ‘populists and the far right’ during debate at the Council of Europe

  • UK Labour MP called out by MEP for criticising Mr Musk and Meta’s free speech policy and for voicing ‘support for Britain’s notoriously heavy-handed prosecutions for social media posts during last summer’s riots’

  • ADF International executive director Paul Coleman: ‘We are living in a new bipolar order of speech’ between Europe and USA

STRASBOURG (1 February 2025) – European politicians on Thursday called for social media censorship to “protect democracy” and criticised X and Meta’s free speech policies during a debate at the Council of Europe.

Politicians at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) called for censorship, in the form of tackling so-called “misinformation”, “disinformation” and “hate speech” online, and voted in favour of a report on social media content regulation.

This follows the European Union last week doubling down on online censorship through the Digital Services Act (DSA), with the same justification of “protecting democracy”.

During Thursday night’s debate, Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg were singled out as threatening democracy with their free speech policies.

Belgian politician Christophe Lacroix said: “Why is Elon Musk in the US government?… There is a conspiracy, in any case a conjunction of interests between populists and the far right and the billionaire owners of social networks to effectively interfere in the electoral process.”

UK Labour MP Cat Eccles said Mr Musk’s “rise of influence” was “something we should all be worried about” and criticised Meta for its new free speech policy, which she characterised as “abandoning fact checking”.

She also indicated support for the notoriously heavy-handed prosecutions for social media posts during Britain’s riots last summer, saying: “While we must value freedom of expression, we must remember that it does not protect individuals from the consequences of their actions. In the UK we saw this play out recently with the horrendous Southport murders last summer and subsequent riots, with people arrested and charged for inciting hatred and violence on all sides.”

French politician Sandra Regol said free speech online posed a threat to “our democracy” and “diversity”.

She said: “We’ve heard a lot about freedom of expression. It’s supposed to be the guarantor of this diversity, it’s supposed to be the guarantor of our democracies and, in a crazy, absolute reversal of values, it’s now the tool that’s destroying this diversity.”

Three amendments were proposed in Thursday’s debate to preserve freedom of expression and they were all rejected.

But an amendment to the report calling for collaborating “with journalists and fact-checking organisations to effectively combat disinformation” was adopted by two-thirds majority.

This puts Europe further at odds with the US regarding free speech, after President Trump last week signed an executive order to end federal government censorship. 

Luxembourg MEP Fernand Kartheiser said:

“Free speech is under serious threat in Europe. It was deeply concerning to see politicians at the Council of Europe calling for online censorship in the name of ‘protecting democracy’.

“Democracy is impossible without free speech, but for some reason, too many politicians, including from the UK, can’t seem to grasp this.

“Labour MP Cat Eccles voiced support for Britain’s notoriously heavy-handed prosecutions for social media posts during last summer’s riots in the country.

“European politicians should consider how their support for censorship and their attacks on the free speech policies of American citizens Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg’s platforms will affect our relationship with our vital ally the United States.

“The US has made its commitment to free speech clear and US Vice President JD Vance already threatened last year to withdraw US support for NATO if the EU censors X.

“For the sake of truly preserving European democracy and also good relations with America, all attempts to impose censorship in Europe, including through the Digital Services Act, must end.”

Paul Coleman, executive director of ADF International, a global organisation dedicated to protecting fundamental freedoms, including at the European institutions, stated:

“We are living in a new bipolar order of speech. On the one hand, Europe is doubling down on censorship, while the US is recommitting to its free speech heritage.

“This will usher in an unprecedented era of tension within the West itself over this most basic of human rights, and it is the responsibility of all who value freedom to side with the protection of free speech.”

EU doubled down on social media censorship with DSA last week

Last week, the European Commissioner in charge of enforcing the DSA, Henna Virkkunen, announced a number of measures to further crack down on speech, including doubling the number of staff working on enforcement from 100 to 200 by the end of 2025.

The Digital Services Act (DSA), which came into full force in February 2024, is an EU regulation that aims to tackle “misinformation”, “disinformation”, and “hate speech” online.

By requiring the removal of so-called “illegal content” on social media platforms, it censors free speech both within and outside the EU and could even affect the speech of US citizens online.

On the DSA, Mr Coleman commented:

“Last week, the European Commission made clear that it will be increasing its efforts to suppress speech, arguing that the Digital Services Act is needed to ‘protect democracy’ from so-called ‘misinformation’, ‘disinformation’ and ‘hate speech’ online.

“As we saw clearly from Thierry Breton’s letter to Elon Musk this summer, warning him not to breach the DSA ahead of his interview with Donald Trump, the DSA will be used to censor views disfavoured by those in power.

“The DSA poses a grave threat to the fundamental right to freedom of expression, guaranteed to every person under international law. It is not the place of any authority to impose a narrow view of acceptable speech on the rest of society.

“The effects of the DSA will not be confined to Europe. There are legitimate worries that the DSA could censor the speech of citizens across the world, as social media companies could regulate their content globally to comply with European standards.”

Other measures announced by Commissioner Virkkunen included making a previously voluntary code of conduct on “illegal hate speech online” legally binding and advancing a framework called the European Democracy Shield (EDS).

The EDS uses fact checkers and NGOs to combat so-called “foreign information manipulation, interference, and disinformation”.

Under the DSA, social media platforms can face massive fines of up to 6% of global annual turnover for failing to remove so-called “misinformation”, “disinformation” and “hate speech”.

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

How the EU Digital Services Act (DSA) Affects Online Free Speech in 2025

Dr. Adina Portaru is ADF International's EU Digital Services Act expert

Nicknamed the ‘Digital Surveillance Act’, the EU’s key online platform legislation hit its one-year mark in February 2025

Picture of Dr. Adina Portaru
Dr. Adina Portaru

Senior Counsel, Europe, ADF International

Adina Portaru is ADF International's EU Digital Services Act expert

The European Digital Services Act (DSA), which took effect last February, has been hailed as a landmark law designed to bring order to the digital world. Yet, beneath the surface of supposedly protecting democracy, lies a framework fraught with overreach, ambiguity, and the erosion of fundamental freedoms.

The EU Commission claims that the Digital Services Act is needed to “protect democracy” by tackling so-called “misinformation”, “disinformation” and “hate speech” online. It promises to create a safer online space by holding digital platforms—particularly “Very Large Online Platforms” (VLOPs) such as Google, Amazon, Meta and X—accountable for addressing these terms.

However, its implementation raises grave concerns. By mandating the removal of broadly defined “harmful” content, this legislation sets the stage for widespread censorship, curtailing lawful and truthful speech under the guise of compliance and safety. The result will be a sanitized and tightly controlled internet where the free exchange of ideas is stifled.

Ultimately, the EU Digital Services Act will allow the silencing of views online that are disfavoured by those in power.

Freedom of speech is the cornerstone of a democratic society and includes the right to voice unpopular or controversial opinions. For this reason, ADF International is committed to ensuring that the right to freedom of speech is firmly upheld.

The Implications on Free Speech

The Digital Services Act’s regulatory framework has profound implications for free speech. 

Under the DSA, tech platforms must act against “illegal content”, removing or blocking access to such material within a certain timeframe. However, the definition of “illegal content” is notably broad, encompassing vague terms like “hate speech”—a major part of the DSA’s focus.

The DSA relies on the EU Framework Decision of 28 November 2008, which defines “hate speech” as incitement to violence or hatred against a protected group of persons or a member of such a group. This circular definition of “hate speech” as incitement to hatred is problematic because it fails to specify what “hate” entails. 

Due to their vague and subjective nature, “hate speech” laws lead to inconsistent interpretation and enforcement, relying more on individual perception rather than clear, objective harm. Furthermore, the lack of a uniform definition at the EU level means that what is considered “illegal” in one country might be legal in another.

Given all this, tech platforms face the impossible task of enforcing uniform standards across the EU.

The effects of the DSA will not be confined to Europe. There are legitimate worries that the DSA could censor the speech of citizens worldwide, as tech companies may impose stricter content regulations globally to comply with European requirements.

How will the EU DSA impact your freedom of speech in 2025?

Big Tech Platforms

Tech platforms aren’t just removing clear violations—they’ve also started removing speech that could be flagged as “harmful”. If you post a political opinion or share a tweet that some might find offensive, it might get flagged by an algorithm. To avoid massive fines or penalties, platforms will err on the side of caution and remove your post, even if it’s perfectly lawful.

Platforms rely on the automated removal of “harmful” information. These tools are widely known to be inaccurate, often fail to consider context, and therefore flag important and legal content. And if it’s not the algorithms that flag your content, it may be regular users who disagree with what you’re saying.

Alleged “Hate Speech” Case

There are many instances in which “hate speech” laws have targeted individuals for peacefully expressing their views online, even before the DSA came into effect. ADF International is supporting the legal defence of Päivi Räsänen, a Finnish Parliamentarian and grandmother of 12, who stands criminally charged for “hate speech”.

Päivi shared her faith-based views on marriage and sexual ethics in a 2019 tweet, a radio show, and in a 2004 pamphlet that she wrote for her church, centred on the Biblical text “male and female he created them”.

Päivi endured two trials and years of public scrutiny before she was unanimously acquitted of “hate speech” charges by both the Helsinki District Court and the Court of Appeal. Despite her acquittal, the state prosecutor has appealed the case, taking it to the Finnish Supreme Court.

It’s obvious that these laws aren’t only about combatting hate and violence; rather, they may target any speech deemed controversial or that challenge the status quo.

You are currently viewing a placeholder content from YouTube. To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.

More Information
Unblock content Accept required service and unblock content

Penalties for Non-Compliance with the EU Digital Services Act

The penalties for failing to comply with the EU Digital Services Act are severe.

Non-compliant platforms with more than 45 million active users could be fined up to 6% of their global annual turnover. For tech platforms like Google, Amazon, Meta, and X, this means billions of euros. So, even the biggest tech companies can’t afford to fall short of the DSA regulations.

If a platform repeatedly fails to comply with the DSA, the EU Commission can impose a temporary or permanent ban, which could result in the platform’s exclusion from the EU market entirely. For platforms that rely heavily on this market, this would mean losing access to one of the world’s largest digital markets.

The risks are high, and tech platforms will scramble to ensure they comply—sometimes at the expense of your fundamental right to free speech.

Section 230, the DSA, and the UK Online Safety Act

The US, the EU, and the UK take different approaches to regulating online speech. While Section 230 protects platforms from liability in the US, the Digital Services Act and the UK Online Safety Act enforce stricter content moderation rules, requiring platforms to remove “illegal” and “harmful” content or face severe penalties.

Below is a comparison of how each framework handles platform liability, free speech, and government oversight:

Feature USA (Section 230) EU (Digital Sservices Act) UK (Online Safety Act)
Legal Basis First Amendment protects free speech; Section 230 shields platforms from liability. EU regulation on transparency and accountability, resulting in content moderation. UK law regulating online content to prevent harm, with strict enforcement.
Platform Liability Section 230 protects platforms from liability for most user-generated content. Large platforms must remove illegal content or face penalties. Platforms must remove harmful but legal content or face fines.
"Hate Speech" Protected unless it incites imminent violence. Platforms must remove illegal "hate speech". Requires platforms to remove content deemed harmful, even if legal.
"Misinformation" Generally protected under free speech laws. Platforms must take action against "systemic risks" like "disinformation". Platforms must mitigate risks from "misinformation", especially for children.
Government Censorship The government cannot censor speech except in rare cases (e.g., incitement to violence). “Trusted flaggers” can flag content for removal, but independent oversight applies. The regulator (Ofcom) enforces rules, and platforms must comply.

“Shadow Content Banning”

In the digital age, we rely increasingly on digital technology to impart and receive information. And it’s essential that the free flow of information is not controlled by unaccountable gatekeepers policing what can and cannot be said.

ADF International’s stance is clear: this legislation will result in dangerous overreach that threatens the very freedoms it claims to protect.

In January, our legal team attended a plenary session and debate at the EU Parliament in Strasbourg regarding the enforcement of the DSA. The discussion brought to light significant concerns across the political spectrum about how the DSA may impact freedom of speech and expression, and rightfully so.

EU Parliament

Several members of the EU Parliament (MEPs), who initially favoured the legislation, raised serious objections to the DSA, with some calling for its revision or annulment. A significant point of contention was the potential for what they termed “shadow content banning”—removing content without adequate transparency.

This includes cases where users might be unaware of why their content was banned, on what legal basis, or how they can appeal such decisions. Most of the time, they’re left with nothing but a generic AI response and no explanation. 

Some MEPs, like French MEP Virginie Joron, referred to the DSA as the “Digital Surveillance Act”.

Despite intense opposition, the EU Commission representative and the Council of the EU representative promised to enforce the DSA more rigorously. They vowed to double down on free speech by enforcing more thorough fact-checking and anti “hate speech” laws “so that “hate speech” is flagged and assessed [within] 24 hours and removed when necessary”.

They failed to provide comprehensive responses to the concerns raised about the DSA’s potential to erode fundamental rights, leaving critical questions about its implementation and implications unresolved.

Conclusion: EU Digital Services Act or “Digital Surveillance Act”?

The EU Digital Services Act’s enforcement mechanisms are riddled with ambiguity. Terms like “misinformation,” “disinformation,” and “hate speech” are too wide and vague to serve as a proper basis for silencing speech. These terms are too easily weaponized, enabling those in power to police dialogue and suppress dissent in the name of safety.

By placing excessive pressure on platforms to moderate content, the DSA risks creating an internet governed by fear—fear of fines, fear of bans, and fear of expressing one’s views. If the DSA is allowed to stifle open dialogue and suppress legitimate debate, it will undermine the very democratic principles it claims to protect.

Policymakers must revisit this legislation, ensuring that efforts to regulate the digital sphere do not come at the cost of fundamental freedoms.

Europe’s commitment to freedom of speech demands better. Through our office in Brussels, we at ADF International are challenging this legislation because it’s not up to governments or unaccountable bureaucrats to impose a narrow view of acceptable speech on society.

Woman arrested for silent prayer responds to Home Office dismissal of “two-tier policing”

  • Home Office’s comments “run contrary to the lived experience of countless everyday British people”, says Isabel Vaughan-Spruce
  • A Dorset retiree will similarly face trial in March for holding a sign reading “here to talk, if you want” in abortion “buffer zone”

LONDON (28th January 2025) – A leaked Home Office counter-extremism dossier says that “claims of ‘two-tier’ policing, where two groups are allegedly treated differently after similar behaviour” are a “right-wing extremist narrative”, according to The Telegraph today.

The dismissal of “two-tier policing” comes after mounting concern amongst Christians that police have cracked down to heavily on peaceful thought and expression, rather than focusing on violent crime.

On 6th March, a Dorset retiree will become the fourth individual to face trial under “buffer zones” regulations, for holding a sign near an abortion facility reading “here to talk, if you want.” Read more.

“The priorities of the Home Office seem to have been turned on their head."

- Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, arrested and tried for praying silently in her head

Isabel Vaughan-Spruce’s case caught the world’s attention when she was seen on a viral video being arrested for praying in her head near an abortion facility in Birmingham.

You are currently viewing a placeholder content from YouTube. To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.

More Information
Unblock content Accept required service and unblock content

Vaughan-Spruce was arrested on two separate occasions for praying peacefully in her mind, leading to one court trial at Birmingham Magistrates’ Court (at which she was fully acquitted), and one lengthy police investigation. With support from ADF UK, Isabel recieved an apology and a settlement from West Midlands Police following her ordeal.

"The Home Office's dismissal...runs contrary to the lived experience of countless British people"

Responding to the comments found within the leaked Home Office dossier, Vaughan-Spruce stated: 

“The Home Office’s abrasive and outright dismissal of widespread concerns about “two-tier policing” runs contrary to the experience of countless everyday British people.

I have been arrested multiple times, faced an intrusive police investigation, and dragged into court – simply for standing silently on a public street nearby an abortion clinic, praying, imperceptibly, in the privacy of my mind. Meanwhile, how many true criminals roam the streets, unchecked? How many of the perpetrators of the grooming gangs were left unaccountable for their violent and despicable actions towards children?

The priorities of the Home Office seem to have been turned on their head. They must acknowledge their misstep here before entirely losing the confidence of the public.”

"The Home Office must direct resources to where they're needed most"

Jeremiah Igunnubole, legal counsel for ADF UK, who supported the defense of Isabel Vaughan-Spruce and others prosecuted for their thoughts and peaceful speech, said:

“Over the last 3 years, we’ve supported several individuals in court who have been prosecuted simply for praying, or offering help, near abortion facilities.

In the wider public square, we’ve also given our support to innocent people like Dia Moodley, a preacher from Bristol, who was arrested and put in cells simply for comparing Islam to Christianity in response to a question.

While the Home Office has committed significant time and resources to cracking down on the expression – or even contemplation of – Christian beliefs, the crime rate statistics prove that they have not directed police resources to where it’s needed most.”

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

PICTURED: Isabel Vaughan-Spruce; Jeremiah Igunnubole (ADF UK); Livia Tossici-Bolt