The case of Livia Tossici-Bolt, a woman prosecuted in Bournemouth, UK, for holding a sign outside an abortion clinic, highlights the tension between public expression and legal boundaries under the Public Order Act 2023. I argue that her behaviour represents a legitimate exercise of free speech in a supposedly democratic society and that the legal response may reflect an overreach that stifles dissent on a deeply moral issue.

Livia Tossici-Bolt stood outside a British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) clinic in Bournemouth on March 2 and 3, 2023, holding a sign that read, "Here to talk, if you want to." Her intent, as described, was to offer conversation to women entering the clinic, presumably to discuss alternatives to abortion or share her perspective as a pro-life advocate. The clinic was within a designated "safe access zone," a buffer area established in 2022 under the Public Order Act 2023 to protect women seeking abortion services from harassment or intimidation. Tossici-Bolt was found guilty of two public order offenses: one for an act with the intent or recklessness to influence, obstruct, or cause distress to those accessing abortion services, and another for obstructing access to the clinic. Her prosecution stemmed from her presence in the safe access zone and the perceived impact of her sign, which authorities argued could influence or distress women making a deeply personal decision.

Tossici-Bolt's actions were minimal—she held a sign and offered dialogue, without evidence of aggressive behaviour, verbal harassment, or physical obstruction. She did not block the entrance, shout at patients, or display graphic imagery, tactics often associated with more confrontational anti-abortion protests. Her sign's message was deliberately neutral, extending an invitation rather than a condemnation. Yet, the court interpreted her presence and message as having the potential to influence or distress, a broad standard that raises questions about the balance between protecting access to healthcare and preserving the right to express dissenting views.

Defending Tossici-Bolt requires examining the principles of free speech and the moral complexity of abortion. Freedom of expression, a cornerstone of democratic societies, includes the right to voice controversial or unpopular opinions, especially on issues as divisive as abortion. Tossici-Bolt's protest was not an act of violence or direct interference; it was a symbolic gesture meant to engage in dialogue. The Public Order Act's safe access zones, while designed to protect women from harassment, can also function as a mechanism to silence legitimate protest, and keep the abortion profits rolling. By criminalising even passive acts like holding a sign, the law risks creating a chilling effect, where individuals fear expressing their views on a public issue due to the threat of prosecution. Tossici-Bolt's case suggests that the threshold for what constitutes "influence" or "distress" is so low that it captures behaviour that is neither harmful nor obstructive, effectively prioritising one group's comfort over another's right to speak.

The moral dimension of Tossici-Bolt's protest further strengthens her defence. Abortion remains a polarising issue, with sincere beliefs on both sides. For pro-life advocates like Tossici-Bolt, the act of abortion involves the termination of a potential human life, a conviction that compels them to act, often out of a sense of moral duty. Her sign, offering to talk, reflects an attempt to provide support or alternatives, not to shame or coerce. While her presence may have caused discomfort to some, discomfort is an inevitable byproduct of free discourse on contentious issues. Women seeking abortions are not a monolithic group; some may have welcomed the opportunity to discuss their decision, even if they ultimately proceeded with the procedure. Assuming that all women would be distressed by her message infantilises them, denying their agency to engage with or ignore her offer as they see fit.

The prosecution's reliance on the Public Order Act also highlights a broader issue: the law's vague language allows for subjective interpretation. Section 9 defines an offense as any act within a safe access zone that intentionally or recklessly influences, obstructs, or causes distress to those accessing abortion services. But what constitutes "influence"? Tossici-Bolt's sign was not directive—it did not tell women what to do, nor did it condemn their choices. The court's ruling implies that merely prompting reflection or offering a conversation can be criminalised, a standard that could easily be applied to other forms of protest or speech. If standing with a sign offering dialogue is deemed obstructive, then the law effectively bans any pro-life expression near clinics, regardless of its tone or intent. This sets a dangerous precedent, where the state can suppress one side of a debate under the guise of public order.

Critics might argue that Tossici-Bolt's presence, even if non-aggressive, could still intimidate women at a vulnerable moment. The safe access zones were created precisely to shield patients from external pressures, ensuring they can access healthcare without interference; in reality to keep the abortions coming. However, this argument assumes that all pro-life expression is inherently coercive, an assumption that does not hold in Tossici-Bolt's case. Her actions were not designed to block access or harass, she stood silently with a sign, offering a choice to engage. The law's failure to distinguish between harassment and peaceful protest risks punishing intent rather than impact, a slippery slope in a free society. Moreover, the distress caused by her sign must be weighed against the distress caused to pro-life advocates who feel their voices are being silenced. Both sides deserve consideration in a balanced legal framework.

Tossici-Bolt's prosecution underscores a deeper societal challenge: how to navigate the abortion debate without resorting to censorship. Her protest, though small in scope, was a courageous act of conviction, rooted in her belief that every life matters. She sought to reach out, not to tear down, and her punishment for doing so reflects a legal system that may be more concerned with avoiding controversy than upholding rights. If democracy means anything, it means tolerating the uncomfortable, the dissenting, and the inconvenient, qualities that Tossici-Bolt's quiet protest embodied. The state's response, rather than her actions, may be the greater threat to the values of free expression and moral dialogue. But that is the direction the UK is now taking.

https://dailysceptic.org/2025/04/05/the-right-to-persuade/

"A woman has been prosecuted for holding a sign saying "here to talk, if you want to" outside a Bournemouth abortion clinic. She was not seeking to interfere with the rights of any woman entering the clinic, although I think it is fair to say that she was hoping to influence her into changing her mind. It cannot be right that a woman should be criminally prosecuted in such a case.

Livia Tossici-Bolt was found guilty of two public order offences for breaching a protected zone outside a British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) clinic on two consecutive days in March 2023.

The zone was established outside the clinic in 2022 given its status as one of the most harassed abortion centres in the country.

The offence is in section 9 of the Public Order Act 2023.

Offence of interference with access to or provision of abortion services

(1) It is an offence for a person who is within a safe access zone to do an act with the intent of, or reckless as to whether it has the effect of —

a.influencing any person's decision to access, provide or facilitate the provision of abortion services at an abortion clinic,

b.obstructing or impeding any person accessing, providing, or facilitating the provision of abortion services at an abortion clinic, or

c.causing harassment, alarm or distress to any person in connection with a decision to access, provide, or facilitate the provision of abortion services at an abortion clinic.

I am only interested in the first offence: that it is an offence for someone to do an act inside a buffer zone with the intent (or reckless – a legal term of art) to influence any person's decision to access, provide or facilitate the provision of abortion services at an abortion clinic. (The other acts in (b) and (c) I accept should be criminal.)

It should be noted that when the buffer zones around abortion clinics were introduced it was on the basis that women were being harassed and intimidated before they entered. I don't support these acts. But the idea that you cannot do any act with the intent of influencing a woman who is entering an abortion clinic is different.

Livia Tossici-Bolt stood outside Bournemouth abortion clinic on March 2nd and 3rd holding a sign saying "here to talk, if you want to". That's all she did.

Officer Rukan Taki, who is employed by Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council to enforce the terms of the safe zone, spoke to her after a complaint was made by the clinic.

The Times sets out what was said at court here.

Tossici-Bolt said "I've been dragged through court merely for offering consensual conversation. Peaceful expression is a fundamental right — no one should be criminalised for harmless offers to converse."

And "my case, involving only a mere invitation to speak, is but one example of the extreme and undeniable state of censorship in Great Britain today. It is important that the government actually does respect freedom of expression, as it claims to."

Louise McCudden, head of external affairs at the pregnancy advice and abortion provider MSI Reproductive Choices [formerly named Marie Stopes International], said the charity was relieved "to see the law upheld".

She said: "Before we had Safe Access Zones, women entering our clinics were harassed, spat at, called murderers and sinners, and given false medical information. We are grateful to local authorities like Bournemouth for listening to residents and introducing local protections."

I don't see how the prosecution of Tossici-Bolt's action of holding a sign up could be proportionate to her Article 10 freedom of expression rights. I hope it is appealed. She has not committed any of the nasty acts such as harassing, spitting or calling women murderers or sinners.

In seeking to prevent harassment the state cannot over legislate – this is the idea it criminalises minor acts in order to prevent more serious ones. That is the very definition of a disproportionate interference in freedom of expression.

Holding up a sign saying "here to talk, if you want to" is clearly a form of expression. However I do not believe that Tossici-Bolt is being completely honest when she says it was only an invitation for consensual conversation. Clearly, if you hold up that sign and you are inviting conversation it is with the intent to influence the decision of a woman about to enter an abortion clinic. You want her to change her mind and keep the baby.

I don't know why the pro-lifers are being so coy about this. There are two reasons you might stand outside an abortion clinic within the buffer zone of 150 metres. The first is the Christian idea of bearing witness – which deserves an article of its own. The second is surely to influence the woman to not undergo the planned abortion. At this stage, you are at last chance saloon.

Some women – maybe just one – who are entering an abortion clinic any one day might have some doubt about what they are about to do. Perhaps they are being coerced, perhaps they feel they have no alternative, they feel having an abortion is something they have to do, not what they want to do. And there is another woman who is holding a sign saying she is here to talk. That's what she is doing with her day. She isn't at work, or at the gym or at lunch or minding her children or parents.

This woman is outside the abortion clinic holding a sign hoping to influence another woman who is about to enter the clinic and end her pregnancy. Sign woman wants pregnant woman to change her mind by holding a sign up saying she is here to talk. We should be honest about that. In a civilised society this would not be criminalised. It is obviously a disproportionate interference with free speech.

Perhaps the pregnant woman who is about to enter the clinic decides not to. She goes over to the woman holding up the sign saying she is here to talk, if you want to. So the pregnant woman goes over and talks, because she wants to. Maybe the woman ends her pregnancy anyway but she knew someone cared enough to spend her whole day outside a clinic. Or maybe the pregnant woman decides she will continue with her pregnancy and contacts one of the charities such as Life that will give her practical help and advice with her pregnancy.

If this happens, this is bad for the abortion clinic. It is one abortion less for the day. It has lost a customer. One extra baby in the labour ward in nine months' time, is one fewer infant remains to be disposed of that very day.

In short, a crazy lady standing outside their abortion clinic offering help is bad for business. And they can't be doing with that."