🧵This morning, a woman was convicted in Britain for holding a sign saying:
“Here to talk, if you want.”
Let that sink in. Here's how it happened: 👇
1/ Livia stood silently in public, in an area covered by a Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO).
That PSPO bans “engaging in an act of...disapproval...[of] abortion… by any means”, including “prayer” and “counselling”.
Yes, really.
2/ In March 2023, Livia stood quietly with her sign.
She didn’t mention abortion.
Didn’t mention religion.
Didn’t say a word unless someone wanted to chat.
Still, she was prosecuted.
3/ The court noted:
“There are no religious buildings… the area is purely residential.”
What does that prove?
That Christians should stay in church?
4/ Even the officer admitted:
He “only able to read the wording ... as he came closer.”
His objection?
It “might be distressing to some individuals.”
5/ Next day, another officer was called by the abortion facility.
She saw Livia talking to a passer-by.
The passer-by confirmed:
“No mention of the clinic or religious material.”
Still, she was told to leave. She refused—because she believed she was acting lawfully.
6/ To convict, the court had to find the officers had a “reasonable belief”she breached the PSPO.
So what was that based on?
7/ – That she has “pro-life views.”
– That he’d interacted with her previously (days not part of the charges)
– That she wasn’t harassing anyone.
Yes, really.
8/ Another gem:
Officer 2 justified action based on:
– Her activity on other days
– An older version of her sign
– The fact it was Lent.
Yes, Lent.
9/ The judge ruled there was no need to separately consider her free speech rights.
But still said—if required—the interference was “necessary to protect the rights of those using and/or visiting the clinic” (remembering none of them had complained).
10/ Livia testified: if someone was distressed, officers could say:
“There’s no right not to see things you don’t like.”
The judge said she “lacks insight”—because she used the word “lovely”in her reply.
11/ The council wanted £64,000 in costs.
The court 'only' made her pay £20k.
That’s the cost of offering someone a chat in 2025 Britain.
12/ 64-year-old grandmother.
No shouting.
No placard.
No slogans.
Just:
“Here to talk, if you want.”
Convicted.
Support her legal defence and other cases advancing the right to live and speak the truth 👉 adf.uk/support-livia
And please consider helping her meet the prosecution costs she has been ordered to pay. She has a GiveSendGo set up for that here: givesendgo.com/help-livia/don…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🚨 WIN for free speech in Australia — and for @BillboardChris. I first met Chris as this was starting out and it was immediately clear they’d picked the wrong person to censor! The eSafety Commissioner lost on nearly every legal point. Here’s what happened, and why it matters: 🧵
In Feb 2024, @BillboardChris shared a @DailyMail article highlighting the appointment of a transgender activist to a WHO panel of experts. He criticised the appointment, and used biologically accurate pronouns.
@eSafetyOffice called it “cyber abuse” and ordered X to take it down
X refused.
Later, they geo-blocked the post in Australia.
But Chris fought the censorship — and just won his appeal before Australia’s Administrative Review Tribunal.
🔴 When a case goes before a court, everyone hopes to win. But of course, not everyone does. When you don’t, what you should be able to expect is a fair hearing and an understandable – if not agreeable – decision. #FreeSpeech
Today, the @UKSupremeCourt handed down a decision that will be very difficult to understand for many.
Northern Ireland had legislated to introduce 150-250m ‘censorship zones’ around abortion facilities. Within the zones, if you “influence” someone “directly or indirectly”, you can be arrested and prosecuted. This was challenged by the NI Attorney General.