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.

Vous êtes actuellement en train de consulter le contenu d'un espace réservé de YouTube. Pour accéder au contenu réel, cliquez sur le bouton ci-dessous. Veuillez noter que ce faisant, des données seront partagées avec des providers tiers.

Plus d'informations
Débloquer le contenu Accepter le service requis et débloquer les contenus

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

What Is the Censorship Industrial Complex and How is it Affecting Our Free Speech Rights?

The Censorship Industrial Complex and what you need to know

A Global "Censorship Industrial Complex" Demands a Global Response

The Censorship Industrial Complex and what you need to know

What was once confined to dystopian fiction has now become an undeniable reality; censorship has become one of the most pressing issues in our digital age. Under the banner of combating “mis-, dis-, and mal-information,” sweeping laws and regulations are being deployed to muzzle voices and suppress free expression on an unprecedented scale.

At its core, censorship is about power—who has it and who gets to decide what is said and what isn’t. This has led to what can be termed the “censorship industrial complex”—a robust and dangerous alliance of governments, international institutions, tech giants, media outlets, academic institutions, and advocacy groups collaborating to control the flow of information, primarily online.

Much like the “military-industrial complex” that US President Dwight Eisenhower warned about in 1961—an influential alliance between government and defence contractors—the “censorship industrial complex” suggests a similar coalition, this time with the intent to control public discourse. Eisenhower warned that when government and industry become too connected, they end up putting corporate or political interests above the public.

As said in the Westminster Declaration: “We understand that words can sometimes cause offence, but we reject the idea that hurt feelings and discomfort, even if acute, are grounds for censorship.” If we fail to address this growing web of censorship, the right to free speech will be chipped away, piece by piece.

How Global Censorship Laws Impact Free Speech Across Borders

The “censorship industrial complex” operates on a global scale, from the suppression of religious speech and political dissent in authoritarian countries to the increasing censorship of conservative or religious perspectives on social media in democratic countries.

The global fight for free speech has reached a critical point, complicated by the vast web of censorship laws across countries. Speech allowed in one country is restricted or criminalized in another, preventing people from sharing ideas across borders. 

And in democratic countries in Europe and the Americas, the threats to free speech are mounting and severe.

“Hate Speech” Legislation as a Tool for the Censorship Industrial Complex

This year, the Irish government debated a “hate speech” law that, if adopted, could criminalize the possession of “hateful” material with up to five years in prison. This law raised alarm among free speech advocates, who asserted that vague definitions of “hate” could lead to suppressing legitimate discourse.

In June, ADF International briefed Irish lawmakers on the dangers and gathered free speech advocates in Dublin to oppose the draconian bill. While the Irish government signalled it would not proceed with the bill, similar legislation likely will be attempted again in the future.

Similarly, in April, Scotland passed a law criminalizing “stirring up hatred” against protected categories, including transgender identity, with a possible seven-year prison sentence. This law also includes ambiguous terms that could criminalize speech perceived as “offensive”.

Wherever these laws are put in place, the term “hate” isn’t clearly defined, opening the door for anything deemed offensive to be categorized as a “hate crime.”

The free speech crisis is far from restricted to one bill in one country. As we’ve seen, restrictive legislation spreads and with it, the erosion of our fundamental freedoms.

Digital Censorship as a Cornerstone for the Censorship Industrial Complex

A peaceful online statement can lead to criminal charges or even prison time in many parts of the world, and the threat of financial penalties is used to pressure and intimidate tech giants like X to censor unwanted speech, leaving anyone at risk for sharing their beliefs.

ADF International is supporting the legal defences of several individuals whose free speech rights have been attacked at national and international levels. Their cases transcend national borders, emphasizing the international nature of the “censorship industrial complex”.

Our Legal Work Against Digital Censorship

Former Mexican congressman Gabriel Quadri was convicted of “gender-based political violence” for tweets on transgender ideology and fair play in female sports. Civil society leader Rodrigo Iván Cortés was convicted of the same for his peaceful expression. Both were sentenced to publish court-written apologies daily on social media and placed on an offender’s registry.

Finnish Parliamentarian Päivi Räsänen has faced charges, trials, and hours of police questioning since a 2019 tweet quoting the Bible’s Book of Romans, in which she questioned her church’s support of a Pride parade.

Citizen journalist and Canadian Billboard Chris was censored for tweeting the truth that a trans-activist shouldn’t serve on a World Health Organization panel for children. Australia’s “E-Safety Commission” tried to force X to take the post down and when X refused, they forced the platform to geo-block it.

Egyptian Father of five Abdulbaqi Saeed Abdo has spent over two years in prison for being part of a Facebook group created for those interested in converting to Christianity.

In Nigeria, Deborah Emmanuel Yakubu was brutally killed by her classmates after she posted a message in a class WhatsApp group, thanking Jesus for helping her with her exams. Her murder was filmed and widely shared. Rhoda Jatau, who allegedly shared a video of Deborah’s killing, condemning it, was also accused of blasphemy. She spent 19 months in prison before being released on bail. In December 2024, following a two-and-a-half-year legal ordeal, a judge in Bauchi State, Nigeria, acquitted Rhoda Jatau of “blasphemy” charges.

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

“Online Safety” Clampdown in Europe

Two major pieces of online speech legislation were passed in Europe over the last two years: the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) and the UK’s Online Safety Act (OSA).

The UK’s Online Safety Act aims to “combat harmful content online” by requiring platforms to moderate it or face penalties. However, it has the clear markings of censorship.

A U.S. Congressional Committee has criticized this law, along with the UK’s recent nationwide “buffer zones” legislation, calling it part of a “tsunami of censorship” threatening free speech in America.

The House Judiciary Committee pressed concerns about free speech in the UK and Europe highlighting on Twitter (X):

“Generally speaking, they require platforms to censor alleged hate speech and harmful content…The UK’s laws mirror or go beyond the EU’s laws & include Orwellian practices to investigate speech.”

The Financial Stakes and the Censorship Industrial Complex

“What do platforms risk if they don’t comply? Penalties are as high as six percent of global revenue from the EU’s DSA and 10% of global revenue from the UK’s OSA. Billions of dollars for most major platforms.

“The Digital Services Act and Online Safety Act enable bureaucrats in the EU and the UK to put platforms out of business. So now, social media companies and their employees are incentivized to overregulate speech on their platforms to preserve their business.”

ADF International’s Executive Director, Paul Coleman, stated, “If British politicians do not act to protect free speech, all other considerations aside, the UK will continue to suffer severe reputational harm on the world stage.”

Award-winning author and journalist Michael Shellenberger recently spoke at the European Parliament about the threats posed to free speech by the DSA at an event attended by ADF International. His message to the EU and President of the Commission Ursula von der Leyen was simple: “Back off your attacks on freedom of speech.”

Our Georgia Du Plessis participated in a roundtable discussion at the Parliament with Shellenberger, MEP Fernand Kartheiser, and former MEP Rob Roos about the DSA and freedom of expression. ADF International is committed to ending the free speech crisis.

Online Censorship Under the Guise of Cybersecurity

Barbados is debating a cybercrime bill that could imprison people for up to seven years for causing “annoyance” or “emotional distress” online.

Under the proposed law, it would be a criminal offense to “publish, broadcast, or transmit data that is offensive” or share content that might subject someone to “ridicule, contempt, or embarrassment.” Even vague notions like “annoyance” and “inconvenience” could lead to prosecution.

Such laws will be used to stifle dissent, intimidate critics, and force self-censorship. The risk? Peaceful expression could be criminalized under the guise of cybersecurity.

We brought this issue before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in Washington, DC, emphasizing that freedom of speech is under direct threat.

While governments have a duty to combat real online crimes like hacking or incitement to violence, targeting “annoyance” crosses a dangerous line. These regulations, which are supposedly designed to protect the public, are increasingly being weaponized against the public.

The proposed legislation raises a critical question: who defines what is offensive or annoying? Without clear definitions, enforcement becomes arbitrary and ripe for abuse. History shows us how such vague laws can pave the way for authoritarian crackdowns on free speech.

The chilling effect is real: people self-censor to avoid crossing invisible lines and even face the threat of imprisonment.

Ban of ‘X’ in Brazil

Brazil has also been grappling with extreme censorship, making it one of the Americas’ most restrictive countries for free speech.

In August, Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes blocked X in the country, citing concerns over “misinformation” and “hate speech” affecting the national elections. He didn’t want Brazilians freely engaging in dialogue online in such a way as to impact the elections, so he abused his office to shut down X.

ADF International filed a petition before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights about the prohibition, representing five Brazilian legislators who were prevented from reaching their audience of millions ahead of a national election.

In September, over 100 global free speech advocates – including UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, journalist Michael Shellenberger, five US Attorneys General, and Senior UK, US, European, and Latin American politicians and professors united in an open letter to call for free speech to be restored in Brazil.

The United States’ Role in Dismantling the Censorship Industrial Complex

The incoming Trump administration is poised to tackle the global censorship issue.

President Trump’s first major policy statement since his victory outlined his plan to restore free speech. He asserts that this fundamental right has been diluted by federal officials who have worked with tech executives to suppress views they don’t like.

Documents uncovered through lawsuits and released by X owner Elon Musk reveal how US agencies collaborated with social media platforms to remove content.

The US’s approach could have wide-ranging effects on censorship laws worldwide, as the US plays a significant role in setting international precedents around free speech and Internet governance.

The US may encourage other countries to protect free speech and, in so doing, work to end the global censorship crisis.

Conclusion: The Censorship Industrial Complex Threatens Our Freedom of Speech

The “censorship industrial complex” is a network of ideologically aligned governmental, nonprofit, media, tech, finance, and academic institutions that are colluding to censor vast swaths of speech they claim threatens democracy, including speech on a wide array of critical social and political issues.

They are weaponizing terms like “hate” and “misinformation/ disinformation” to censor speakers directly, pressure digital platforms to censor, and threaten to shut down platforms that refuse to bend the knee to censorship demands.

Throughout history, those in power have always sought to censor speech with which they disagree.

We must confront the “censorship industrial complex” and safeguard the right to free speech if we are to ensure a future where ideas can flourish without fear of suppression.

United Nations experts call for immediate release of Yahaya Sharif-Aminu, denounce blatant human rights violations in Nigeria

Nigerian prisoner Yahaya Sharif-Aminu
  • Experts with the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention call for the immediate and unconditional release of Nigerian Yahaya Sharif-Aminu. 
  • Sharif-Aminu currently remains in prison while awaiting Supreme Court appeal following death sentence for sharing allegedly “blasphemous” song lyrics on WhatsApp; ADF International is supporting his appeal to the Supreme Court of Nigeria. 
Nigerian prisoner Yahaya Sharif-Aminu

GENEVA (3 DECEMBER 2024) The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) has called for the immediate release and reparations for Nigerian Yahaya Sharif-Aminu in a just-published opinion. Sharif-Aminu was sentenced to death by hanging in 2020 for sharing allegedly “blasphemous” song lyrics in a closed WhatsApp group. He is currently awaiting appeal at the Nigerian Supreme Court with the legal support of ADF International. 

In their opinion, the WGAD finds that Nigerian authorities deprived Sharif-Aminu of various fundamental human rights in international law, including freedom of religion or belief and freedom of expression, and urges Nigerian authorities to “take the steps necessary to remedy the situation” without delay. The WGAD also urges the government of Nigeria to “ensure a full and independent investigation into the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary detention of Mr. Sharif-Aminu and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of his rights.” The full opinion can be read here. 

“We are grateful to the members of the WGAD for speaking out on Yahaya’s behalf and for their denouncement of the blatant human rights violations he has been enduring,” said Sean Nelson, legal counsel for ADF International. “It is past time for Nigerian officials to heed the advice of human rights advocates across the globe, release Yahaya and abolish the blasphemy laws that have plagued religious minorities in Nigeria for far too long. No person should be punished, prosecuted, or threatened with death for their peaceful expression and their faith. We pray for Yahaya’s unconditional release and for all people worldwide to continue to raise their voices on his behalf.” 

Kola Alapinni, international human rights lawyer and lead attorney on Sharif-Aminu’s case, said: “The WGAD has reviewed the full facts of the unjust charges against Yahaya Sharif-Aminu, and have come to a clear and decisive statement that his rights have been violated grievously. I thank them for their call for his immediate release. Officials in Nigeria should listen—Yahaya’s ongoing detention is indefensible.” 

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

A video from ADF International features testimonies from Yahaya’s mother, father, and uncle, who recount the traumatic experiences endured by Yahaya and their family.

Death sentence for “blasphemy”   

In 2020, Sufi Muslim Yahaya Sharif-Aminu was sentenced to death by hanging for “blasphemy”. His alleged crime involved sending song lyrics on WhatsApp that were deemed blasphemous toward the prophet Mohammed.    

With support from human rights legal advocacy group ADF International, Sharif-Aminu has appealed his case to the Supreme Court of Nigeria and is challenging the constitutionality of Sharia-based blasphemy laws. He remains in prison awaiting the Supreme Court appeal. His case is far from an isolated incident. Together with minority Muslims, the persecution of Christians in Nigeria is especially severe. In 2022, approximately 90% of all Christians worldwide that were killed for their faith were in Nigeria.   

International pressure has been mounting to free Yahaya and end blasphemy laws. Last year, the European Parliament overwhelmingly called for the immediate release of Sharif-Aminu, and a group of 209 international and Nigerian human rights advocates wrote to then-Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari, calling for Sharif-Aminu’s immediate release. 

In addition, in May of this year, United Nations experts called for Sharif-Aminu’s immediate and unconditional release.  

Sharif-Aminu’s potentially landmark Supreme Court appeal could end blasphemy laws in his home state of Kano and across northern Nigeria. A positive decision could lead the way toward abolishing blasphemy laws around the world.  

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

‘Tsunami of censorship’: US congressional committee criticises UK’s abortion centre ‘buffer zones’ and online censorship

Isabel Vaughan-Spruce in 2022.
  • Influential committee makes intervention on alarming state of free speech in UK and Europe
  • Abortion centre ‘buffer zones’ and Online Safety Act in UK criticised
Isabel Vaughan-Spruce in 2022.

LONDON (22 November 2024) – An influential US congressional committee has criticised abortion centre “buffer zones” and the Online Safety Act in the UK as part of a “tsunami of censorship headed towards America”.

“This intervention from the House Judiciary Committee shows the UK is fast becoming notorious around the world for its censorious practices."

- Paul Coleman, Executive Director of ADF International

The X (Twitter) account for the Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee, who are the majority on the cross-party House of Representatives standing committee, called out this censorship in a thread on the alarming state of free speech in the UK and Europe.

The House Judiciary Committee interviewed Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, a Catholic woman who, supported by ADF International, recently won a payout of £13,000 from West Midlands Police for her two unlawful arrests for silently praying in an abortion centre “buffer zone” in Birmingham. ADF International is a faith-based legal advocacy organisation.

The committee’s X thread also critiqued the Online Safety Act for requiring “platforms to censor alleged hate speech and harmful content”.

ADF International Executive Director Paul Coleman commented: “This intervention from the House Judiciary Committee shows the UK is fast becoming notorious around the world for its censorious practices.

“The incoming administration has made its commitment to free speech clear. If British politicians do not act to protect free speech, all other considerations aside, the UK will continue to suffer severe reputational harm on the world stage.” 

Congressman Darrell Issa, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, said: “The growing attacks on free speech in the US – as well as the UK and EU – pose a direct threat to free people on both sides of the Atlantic. We know that legislation like the Online Safety Act that is said to combat ‘hate speech’ empowers regulators to censor free speech.

“Congressional Republicans understand that these threats to free speech are part of a broader global push by the Censorship Industrial Complex, which includes not only the EU, UK, and other nations but also malign actors here at home. We are committed to confronting this growing threat alongside the incoming Trump Administration to fight against these assaults on free speech within our borders and around the world.”

Reform UK Leader, Nigel Farage MP said: “The crackdown on free expression within the UK is becoming very sinister.

“Our police and government now withhold vital public information and we get censored simply for demanding the truth.

“I will continue to fight this.”

Critique of “buffer zones”

In its post, the House Judiciary GOP said: “What could posting a Bible verse or praying in front of an abortion clinic get you in Europe? A visit from the police—or worse…

“Isabel Vaughan-Spruce was arrested and prosecuted for silently praying. She won her case. Yet still, she receives tickets and other forms of intimidation by police.”

The intervention came shortly after “buffer zones” were introduced around all abortion centres in England and Wales at the end of last month as part of the Public Order Act.

These ban “influencing” someone regarding abortion within 150 metres of an abortion facility. Thankfully, the Crown Prosecution Service has issued guidance saying silent prayer is “not necessarily” a crime and that there must be evidence of overt activity.

However, army veteran Adam Smith-Connor last month became the first person to be convicted for silent prayer in a “buffer zone”. With the support of ADF International, he is appealing his conviction.

Medical scientist Dr Livia Tossici-Bolt also faces trial for holding a sign in a “buffer zone” that said “Here to talk if you want”. 

Critique of Online Safety Act and Digital Services Act

The House Judiciary GOP post critiqued UK online speech legislation and the Digital Services Act, an EU regulation: “Two major pieces of online speech legislation were passed in Europe over the last two years: The EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) & the UK’s Online Safety Act (OSA).

“Generally speaking, they require platforms to censor alleged hate speech and harmful content… The UK’s laws mirror or go beyond the EU’s laws & include Orwellian practices to investigate speech.”

The committee’s post explained that because of the population and economic size of the UK and EU, regulations that censor speech in those areas can affect the US. For example, companies change their global policies to match anti-speech EU regulations.

Financial penalties also play a role: “What do platforms risk if they don’t comply? Penalties are as high as 6% of GLOBAL revenue from the EU’s DSA and 10% of GLOBAL revenue from the UK’s OSA. Billions of dollars for most major platforms.

“The Digital Services Act and Online Safety Act enable bureaucrats in the EU and the UK to put platforms out of business. So now, social media companies and their employees are strongly incentivized to overregulate speech on their platforms to preserve their business.

“The fight for free expression online is a global fight. The Biden-Harris Administration has stood by silently as foreign countries try to render the First Amendment obsolete.”

Dr Päivi Räsänen

The thread from the congressional committee also highlighted the case of Dr Päivi Räsänen, a Finnish parliamentarian on trial for a tweet expressing her Christian views on sexuality.

With the support of ADF International, Dr Räsänen faces trial at Finland’s Supreme Court for alleged “hate speech”, despite being unanimously acquitted of the charges on two previous occasions.

The House Judiciary GOP added: “If she [Dr Räsänen] loses her case, it could serve as a precedent for other European countries.

“Meaning posting a Bible verse could be soon considered ‘hate speech’ across the EU.”

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

Army veteran confirms APPEAL as Crown Prosecution Service concede silent prayer “not necessarily” an offence 

  • With legal support from ADF UK, Adam Smith-Connor will pursue an appeal against his conviction for praying silently in a “buffer zone” 
  • CPS guidance on prosecuting “buffer zone” breaches requires evidence of “overt” activity  
  • “Buffer zones” enacted TODAY around every abortion facility in England & Wales 

LONDON (31 October 2024) – As the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) unveils guidance clarifying that silent prayer is “not necessarily” a crime in an abortion “buffer zone”, the army veteran found “guilty” for praying silently near an abortion facility has announced today that he will pursue an appeal against his conviction, with support from ADF UK. 

The guidance comes on the same day as the national rollout of a new “buffer zones” law – making it a crime to “influence a person’s decision to access…abortion services” within 150m of an abortion facility in England and Wales. 

On 16th October, Bournemouth Magistrates’ Court convicted and sentenced Smith-Connor to a conditional discharge and ordered him to pay prosecution costs of £9,000.  

In its decision, the court emphasised Adam’s known beliefs on abortion. The judge also noted that people may have perceived that Adam was praying because at one point his head may have been slightly bowed and his hands were clasped at his waist in an “at ease” posture. 

The defence contend that Smith-Connor was not “overt” in his actions, as required by CPS guidance on prosecuting buffer zone breaches. His eyes were open and he stood in a “normal” standing position, in a public green across the road from the clinic, with his back to the entrance.

WATCH BELOW: Officers interrogate Adam as to the “nature of his prayers”:

Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole Council charged and prosecuted Adam Smith-Connor for breaking locally-enforced “buffer zone” rules, following an interrogation by officers on “the nature of his prayers” when he stopped to pray silently for a few minutes near an abortion facility in November 2022.    

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

The government simply cannot be allowed to determine the content of thoughts and prayers.

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

The ruling, issued on 16th October 2024, marked the first time in modern British history that a citizen has been criminalised on the basis of his thoughts. 

Speaking about his decision to pursue an appeal, Adam Smith-Connor said: 

“Surely a silent thought cannot be a crime. With support from ADF UK, I’m pursuing an appeal against my conviction. The government simply cannot be allowed to determine the content of thoughts and prayers. 

“I served for 20 years in the army reserves, including a tour in Afghanistan, to protect the fundamental freedoms that this country is built upon. I continue that spirit of service as a health care professional and church volunteer. It troubles me greatly to see our freedoms eroded to the extent that thoughtcrimes are now being prosecuted in the UK.” 

Public funding spent on prosecuting prayers

Controversially, Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole Council spent over £100,000 of public funds prosecuting Smith-Connor for his silent thoughts, for a charge with a maximum penalty of £1,000. This expense – including instructing a King’s Counsel – comes despite the Council being on the brink of bankruptcy for the past year. 

Commenting on the trial and the use of public funds ahead of the verdict, politician Miriam Cates said:  

“This isn’t 1984, but 2024 – nobody should be on trial for the mere thoughts they hold in their mind. It’s outrageous that the local council are pouring taxpayer funding into prosecuting a thoughtcrime, at a time where resources are stretched thin. Buffer zone regulation are disproportionately wide, leaving innocent people vulnerable to prosecution merely for offering help, or simply holding their own beliefs.”  

Buffer zones installed nationwide 

Today, the UK government have enforced “buffer zones” around every abortion facility in England and Wales – banning “influencing” someone’s decision to access abortion services within 150m of the building. 

ADF UK has warned that the vague wording of the legislation could lead to more prosecutions over thoughts, or consensual conversations between adults. 

In March 2023, Parliament voted down an amendment to explicitly protect silent prayer, leaving the wording of the law vague as to which activities might be construed as “influencing”. Today’s guidance from CPS confirms former Home Secretary Suella Braverman’s views that “silent prayer, within itself, is not unlawful.” 

Speaking about the new law and accompanying CPS Guidance, enforced under the Public Order Act 2023, ADF UK Legal Counsel Jeremiah Igunnubole said: 

“We are glad that the CPS has confirmed that silent prayer is not necessarily a criminal offence and that there must be evidence of overt activity. This is commonsense and consistent with the absolute right to freedom of thought protected under domestic and international law. Previous Home Secretaries and the magistrates’ court have repeatedly concluded that silent prayer, within itself, cannot constitute a criminal offence. Now that CPS guidance has recognized the same, it is incumbent on police officers and local authorities to refrain from ideological and discriminatory interpretations which seek to criminalise prayer itself rather than overt conduct amounting to harassment and intimidation.  

“It’s for this reason that we are glad to support Adam as he pursues an appeal of his conviction for praying silently without engaging anyone or being obtrusive in any way. This is a watershed moment for British freedoms, and one the public must not take lightly. A failure to protect thought and peaceful conduct anywhere creates a threat to these rights everywhere. Buffer zones or otherwise, we should uncompromisingly safeguard the rights on which our democracy is based.” 

 

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

Pictured: Jeremiah Igunnubole, legal counsel for ADF UK; Adam Smith-Connor

Almost 60,000 signatories ask Keir Starmer to protect freedom of thought, as army veteran prosecuted for silent prayer 

  • Public letter to PM pleads: “act urgently to ensure that thought is never buffered, censored or criminalised.”
  • Army veteran convicted for silently praying near abortion facility last week
  • Government set to roll out censorial “buffer zones” around every abortion facility from 31st October 

LONDON (25th October 2024) – 57,900 members of the public have signed an open letter to Keir Starmer in light of an army veteran being prosecuted for his silent prayers. 

The letter, addressed to the UK Prime Minister, reads: “Freedom of thought is our most basic and precious of rights – and has long been recognised in British law and every major human rights document from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights onwards.” 

The letter highlights the plight of Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, who received a £13,000 payout from West Midlands Police after being unlawfully arrested twice for imperceptibly praying in her head in a Birmingham “buffer zone”. 

"A failure to protect thought and peaceful speech anywhere, creates a threat to these rights everywhere."

- Jeremiah Igunnubole, legal counsel for ADF UK

Also noted is the case of Livia Tossici-Bolt, who will face trial in March 2025 for inviting consensual conversation in the buffer zone by holding a sign reading “Here to talk, if you want”.

Father Sean Gough is also highlighted, having been fully acquitted of all charges after facing trial for praying while holding a sign near a Birmingham abortion facility reading “praying for freedom of speech”, and having a small pro-life sticker on his parked car inside the buffer zone.

The letter further references army veteran Adam-Smith Connor, who was found guilty last week for praying silently in his head near an abortion facility in the first “thoughtcrime” conviction of modern British history. Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole Council spent over £100,000 of public funds prosecuting the father of two, hiring a Kings Council, despite being on the brink of bankruptcy. 

A slippery slope of censorship

Christian legal charity ADF UK supported the defence of all four individuals prosecuted on the basis of their silent prayers in abortion “buffer zone” areas.

ADF UK legal counsel Jeremiah Igunnubole explained that the different outcomes in each case represent a “profound and troubling lack of clarity in the law, and an undue subjectivity allowing individual officers and local authorities to determine whether silent prayer can be considered a crime on any given day.”

 

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

Alluding to recent fears regarding “two-tier policing” in the UK, where those with conservative viewpoints are disproportionately censored and punished for voicing their opinions, the letter continues: 

“The slippery slope is clear; if the criminal law requires us to refrain from ‘offensive’ thoughts anywhere, there is simply no logical endpoint. Today, it’s pro-life views that offend progressive social orthodoxies; tomorrow, it could be gender-critical views and gender-critical buffer zones. A genuinely democratic society must champion diversity of thought and the free and frank exchange of views.”

Silent prayer under threat of criminalisation

Vaughan-Spruce, Smith-Connor, Gough and Tossici-Bolt were all charged for allegedly breaching a “buffer zone”, implemented by five local council authorities via a “Public Spaces Protection Order”, which bans acts of “approval or disapproval” of abortion – but have been interpreted by officers to even include thoughts inside someone’s mind.  

The UK government are set to roll out “buffer zone” legislation across the country from 31st October, making it a crime to “influence” anybody’s “decision to access…abortion services” within 150m of an abortion facility. 

Free speech campaigners have raised concerns about the loose wording of this legislation, which could potentially be applied to criminalise friends and family who offer advice, or engage in consensual conversations about abortion, near the facility. 

Commenting on the upcoming enforcement of national buffer zones, Jeremiah Igunnubole said:  

“We all influence each other’s decisions all the time – be it through the advice of a parent, the concern of a friend, or the information made available through a charitable volunteer. The ability to peacefully exchange views is the lifeblood of democratic society.   

“Yet the Public Order Act is written so vaguely that these everyday, peaceful, caring conversations could be made illegal on certain streets of England when it comes to discussing abortion. The lack of clarity in the law could result in many more citizens like Adam being interrogated or even charged for simply directing silent thoughts towards God.   

“The right to hold a consensual conversation, or engage in silent prayer, constitute the most basic of human rights. They are protected robustly by international legal provisions relating to freedom of thought and speech.   

“This is a watershed moment for British freedoms, and one the public must not take lightly. A failure to protect thought and peaceful speech anywhere creates a threat to these rights everywhere. Buffer zones or otherwise, we should uncompromisingly safeguard the rights on which our democracy is based.” 

To read the public letter in full, click here.

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

Pictured: ADF UK Legal Counsel Jeremiah Igunnubole with individuals prosecuted for their silent prayers: Adam Smith-Connor; Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, Livia Tossici-Bolt, Fr. Sean Gough

VERDICT TOMORROW: Army Vet on trial for silent prayer

Adam Smith-Connor, army vet convicted
  • Army veteran and father of two, Adam Smith-Connor, charged with breaching censorial “buffer zone” by holding prayerful thoughts in his mind
  • Verdict to be announced Wednesday 16th October, 10am, Poole Magistrates’ Court 
  • UK government to roll out “buffer zones” nationwide 31st October, criminalising “influence” near abortion facilities
Adam Smith-Connor, army vet convicted

DORSET (15th October 2024) – A man charged and tried for praying silently in an abortion “buffer zone” in Bournemouth will hear his verdict tomorrow at Bournemouth Magistrates’ Court. 

Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole Council filed charges against Adam Smith-Connor, a military veteran and father of two, following an interrogation by office on “the nature of his prayers” when he stopped to pray for a few minutes near an abortion facility in November 2022.

Watch footage of the interrogation below:

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

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.  

Ahead of the verdict, Adam Smith-Connor stated: 

“Nobody should be prosecuted for silent prayer. It is unfathomable that in an apparently free society, I am being criminally charged on the basis of my silent thoughts, in the privacy of my own mind. It’s not different than being tried for a thoughtcrime. 

“I served for 20 years in the army reserves, including a tour in Afghanistan, to protect the fundamental freedoms that this country is built upon. I continue that spirit of service as a health care professional and church volunteer. It troubles me greatly to see our freedoms eroded to the extent that thoughtcrimes are now being prosecuted in the UK.”  

"I am being criminally charged on the basis of my silent thoughts, in the privacy of my own mind. It’s not different than being tried for a thoughtcrime."

- Adam Smith-Connor, military veteran on trial for silent prayer

Despite battling bankruptcy warnings and being forced to cut “all non-essential spending”, Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole Council spent more than £90,000 on legal fees to prosecute the offence, which carries a maximum penalty of £1,000.

Commenting on the trial and the use of public funds, former MP Miriam Cates said: 

“This isn’t 1984, but 2024 – nobody should be on trial for the mere thoughts they hold in their mind. It’s outrageous that the local council are pouring taxpayer funding into prosecuting a thoughtcrime, at a time where resources are stretched thin. Buffer zone regulation are disproportionately wide, leaving innocent people vulnerable to prosecution merely for offering help, or simply holding their own beliefs.”

Smith-Connor did not outwardly manifest his prayer by kneeling, speaking, or holding any signs to indicate his outer thoughts. He made every effort to be out of the line of sight of the abortion facility, positioned behind a tree with his back to the clinic and did not engage with any passersby.   

Commenting on the trial, Father of the House Sir Edward Leigh MP said: 

“It is disgraceful that in Britain in 2024 someone can be put on trial for praying silently in his head. Unfortunately we have seen repeated cases of free speech under threat in the UK when it comes to the expression of Christian beliefs. To offer a prayer silently in the depths of your heart cannot be an offence. The government must clarify urgently that freedom of thought is protected as a basic human right.”

A national roll-out of "buffer zones" - 31st October

Five councils across the UK currently have active “buffer zones” or censorship zones banning prayer and offers of charitable help to women on the public streets near abortion facilities.  

The UK Parliament voted to roll out “buffer zones” around every abortion facility in England & Wales as part of the Public Order Act 2023.  

The Labour Government have announced plans to implement the zones on 31st October. Under the national law, “influencing” someone’s decision to “access” abortion services will become a crime. 

Commenting on the upcoming enforcement of national buffer zones, Jeremiah Igunnubole said: 

“We all influence each other’s decisions all the time – be it through the advice of a parent, the concern of a friend, or the information made available through a charitable volunteer. The ability to peacefully exchange views is the lifeblood of democratic society.  

“Yet the Public Order Act is written so vaguely that these everyday, peaceful, caring conversations could be made illegal on certain streets of England when it comes to discussing abortion. The lack of clarity in the law could result in many more citizens like Adam being interrogated or even charged for simply directing silent thoughts towards God.  

“The right to hold a consensual conversation, or engage in silent prayer, constitute the most basic of human rights. They are protected robustly by international legal provisions relating to freedom of thought and speech.  

“This is a watershed moment for British freedoms, and one the public must not take lightly. A failure to protect thought and peaceful speech anywhere creates a threat to these rights everywhere. Buffer zones or otherwise, we should uncompromisingly safeguard the rights on which our democracy is based.” 

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

PICTURED (from left): Adam Smith-Connor praying outside Poole Magistrates’ Court; Adam Smith-Connor portrait; Adam with ADF UK legal counsel Jeremiah Igunnubole; Jeremiah Igunnubole portrait