The U.K. has long been a stalwart in defending basic human liberties. It is the birthplace of the Magna Carta, and the British Human Rights Act includes strong protections for the freedoms of thought, belief, religion, and expression.
But in recent years, the U.K. has begun prioritizing ideological conformity over the protection of fundamental freedoms such as free speech. Dr. Livia Tossici-Bolt, a 64-year-old former medical scientist, has become the latest victim of this change.
Punished for offering peaceful conversation
During the COVID-19 pandemic, Livia began to notice that restrictions on social interaction were having negative effects on many people. But she also noticed something more promising: people were going out on the street offering hugs, conversation, and other encouragement to those who needed it.
This gave Livia the idea to go onto a public street near an abortion facility in Bournemouth, England, and hold a sign that read, “Here to talk if you want.”
Livia’s sign led to countless positive interactions with many different people. Students spoke to her about their studies, parents spoke to her about their children, and one person even invited her over for tea.
But the Bournemouth Council officials in charge of patrolling the zone didn’t see these peaceful conversations as a positive. Instead, they issued Livia a fine for allegedly violating a so-called “buffer zone.”
The “buffer zone,” which could more aptly be called a “censorship zone,” prevents people from expressing “approval or disapproval” of abortion within 150 meters of the Bournemouth abortion facility. But all Livia did was offer peaceful conversation to those who wanted to speak with her.
Since she hadn’t done anything wrong, Livia declined to pay the fine. She was then dragged into a trial, and even though the officers involved in the incident couldn’t cite any complaints of people saying they felt harassed by Livia’s presence, a magistrate court found her guilty and ordered her to pay £20,000.
The UK should turn back to protecting human rights
What happened to Livia Tossici-Bolt is a grave violation of the basic right to free expression. No one should be criminalized for peacefully offering to talk to people on a public street. Unfortunately, it is far from the first case of censorship in the U.K. in recent years.
In November 2022, Isabel Vaughan-Spruce was arrested for praying in her head near an abortion facility in Birmingham, England. ADF International supported Isabel’s legal defense, and in August 2024, the West Midlands Police admitted to treating Isabel unjustly. The department agreed to pay approximately £13,000 for violating Isabel’s fundamental rights to free speech and freedom of religion.
But not every censorship case has seen such a positive outcome. In October 2024, U.K. army veteran Adam Smith-Connor was convicted at the same Bournemouth court as Livia for silently praying near an abortion facility. The court sentenced him to a conditional discharge and ordered him to pay prosecution costs of £9,000. Adam has appealed the decision, and ADF International is supporting his legal defense.
As the “land of the free,” the United States has a vested interest in protecting free speech not only at home but also abroad. That’s why cases like Adam’s and Livia’s have caught the attention of the Trump administration.
At a speech in Munich, U.S. Vice President JD Vance highlighted the disturbing nature of Adam’s conviction. And in Livia’s case, the Trump administration has arguably been even more explicit in calling out censorship concerns.
In a series of posts on the social media platform X, the U.S. State Department said, “We are concerned about freedom of expression in the United Kingdom. … We are monitoring [Livia’s] case.” The department’s decision to publicly comment shows that this case is no small matter to the administration.
Historically, the U.K. has been a strong partner to the U.S. in defending basic liberties. Instead of continuing this dangerous slide toward authoritarianism, now is the time for the U.K. to reaffirm its commitment to protecting the freedom to speak, think, and dissent.
