Rose Docherty is what they call a criminal recidivist in the United Kingdom. The 75-year-old woman has been arrested for a second time for the same fiendish act: offering to speak to women considering an abortion. She was arrested outside the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital in Glasgow for carrying a placard which stated “Coercion is a crime, here to talk, only if you want.” Fortunately, she and her sign were quickly seized by the local police to protect the public.
Free speech literally does not have a prayer in the United Kingdom. We previously discussed the case of Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, who was arrested for standing near an abortion clinic while silently praying. Police asked what she was doing standing at the location and when she said that she was praying in her head, they arrested her.
How Docherty ended up in the hoosegow in Glasgow is a chilling tale of how censorship can consume a nation.
The Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) Act came into force last September. The architect of the law, Scottish Green MSP Gillian Mackay, denounced protests of abortions as “totally unacceptable abuse and obstruction” outside hospitals. So it is now a crime to behave in ways that could influence the decisions of women and staff to access services within the buffer zones.
In other words, it is a crime to exercise free speech. In this case, the “unacceptable abuse” was offering to speak with other women about abortion.
The United Kingdom shows how limiting speech can create an insatiable appetite for greater and greater speech controls. I discuss the UK as a cautionary tale for the United States in my book, The Indispensable Right.
A man was convicted for sending a tweet while drunk referring to dead soldiers. Another was arrested for an anti-police t-shirt. Another was arrested for calling the Irish boyfriend of his ex-girlfriend a “leprechaun.” Yet another was arrested for singing “Kung Fu Fighting.” A teenager was arrested for protesting outside of a Scientology center with a sign calling the religion a “cult.”
British censorship now extends to not just silent prayers but toxic thoughts.
Last year, Nicholas Brock, 52, was convicted of a thought crime in Maidenhead, Berkshire. The neo-Nazi was given a four-year sentence for what the court called his “toxic ideology” based on the contents of the home he shared with his mother in Maidenhead, Berkshire.
While most of us find Brock’s views repellent and hateful, they were confined to his head and his room. Yet, Judge Peter Lodder QC dismissed free speech or free thought concerns with a truly Orwellian statement: “I do not sentence you for your political views, but the extremity of those views informs the assessment of dangerousness.”
Lodder lambasted Brock for holding Nazi and other hateful values:
“[i]t is clear that you are a right-wing extremist, your enthusiasm for this repulsive and toxic ideology is demonstrated by the graphic and racist iconography which you have studied and appeared to share with others…”
Even though Lodder agreed that the defendant was older, had limited mobility, and “there was no evidence of disseminating to others,” he still sent him to prison for holding extremist views.
After the sentencing Detective Chief Superintendent Kath Barnes, Head of Counter Terrorism Policing South East (CTPSE), warned others that he was going to prison because he “showed a clear right-wing ideology with the evidence seized from his possessions during the investigation….We are committed to tackling all forms of toxic ideology which has the potential to threaten public safety and security.”
The idea of cracking down on “toxic ideologies” is of course nothing new in countries like China and Iran. However, the anti-free speech movement in Europe has succeeded in destroying the foundations for free speech in the West. the European Union is now one of the most hostile, anti-free speech organizations in the world.
As the anti-free speech movement grows in this country, citizens need to look at Europe for where this path would take us. Americans are appearing before the EU and speaking at European conferences in support of such measures. Anti-free speech views and books are all the rage in academia. It is a dangerous conceit to believe that what has occurred in Europe cannot occur here.
Just ask Rose Docherty.
Prof. Turley has nicely illustrated the practical difference between the positive right of speech granted to British citizens by their government and the natural right of free speech for Americans recognized by the American government.
England has had a long tradition of socially curbing untamed thoughts. Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain), in an 1883 letter to Karl Gerhardt, who was an American artist that the Clemens’ sponsored to study in France in the time of the Impressionism movement, said that “I imagine that it must be as dreary for an artist to live in America [rather than in France] as it would be for a humorist to live in England.” By that time, Samuel Clemens had been on multiple and quite well received lecture/book tours in England and had a certain familiarity with England and the values of English Victorian society. Samuel Clemens’ sense of humor was, at times, quite untamed. He was a creature of America and we are fortunate that he was not born and raised in England. One wonders what are the consequences, for those compliant people, of curbing speech in Britain? Is Britain forgoing a Mark Twain or a Steve Jobs?
Abortion is murder, which is homicide after 24 hours of fertilization.
It is clearly the choice of the baby to continue to develop, which it is doing every day—persisting in its endeavor to live and grow.
The woman is right!
The British are insane!
It’s the baby’s body and the baby’s choice!
________________________________________________
And here are some bonus scientific facts that prove it’s not just an organ or part of the mother.
During its early stages of development, the placenta of the unborn child secretes neurokinin B-containing phosphocoline molecules, which protects the child from detection by its mother’s immune system, because it can be interpreted as a foreign body and is subject to attack. This is because the fetus is of non-identical genetic material to the mother due to their different DNA.
Also present in the unborn child are lymphocytic suppressor cells which stop interleukin 2 (IL2) cells from signalling cytotoxic T cells to kill the child. The purpose of IL2 cells is to distinguish between self and non-self (parts of the mother and foreign parts). The lymphocytic cells would not need to inhibit the response of the cytotoxic T cells if the IL2 did not signal the feuts as a foreign body. This would not occur if it was one of her own organs because the response would not be initiated.
An organ does not have its own organs. The fetal heartbeat begins at around 22 days after fertilisation as I said earlier, and brain waves are detected at about six weeks, which means the unborn child has a heart and a brain. At seven weeks, all other organs are present, although not fully developed, which would mean not only did the mother have an organ with different DNA to her, but this organ also has its own organ systems, and so the mother has an extra heart, brain, stomach, liver, etc.
– Emma Greenland-Broadsmith
*. If one goes to hell for murder then anyone having had an abortion is going to hell? Is that right? Is it your thoughts that send her to hell or does God send her to hell? God being perfect virtue and moral perfectly couldn’t possibly send anyone to hell. It must be you? That’s immoral of you and surely you’ll go to hell for it.
Wackjob here – scroll over.
Argue it. That’s the logic.
You just described the behavior of a parasite. Take the fetus out and let it live on its own as long as it can.
The fetal heartbeat regulation cells begin to operate long before the pump of the heart forms. There is no heart organ present at the time, no circulatory system for it to drive.
I hope one day medical progress can be made such that the parasite can be transferred to both men and women, particularly those carrying banners and screaming about the loss of life, a life with no mind, no memory, no consciousness. This is especially true for those cases where the abortion is because the fetus has died and risks starting to rot to give the anti-abortion protesters some sense of the reasons to do so.
Reproduction vs. parasitism is obviously a weak stretch, but of course you already know that. The left simply has no value for life, unless it directly benefits them.
You do know people with kidney failure can be hooked to another healthy person and blood from two people can use the pair of kidneys in situ? Would that be good? Or you have two healthy kidneys. Laws requiring registry for matches all people can be kept and mandatory donation at any time in life required. Would that be okay? Why or why not…same for bone marrow and liver portions. When your donor requirement card comes up you’ll be called. Why or why not.
Communal bodies makes sense, no private property.
You know the lawyer joke where the guy stubs his toe on a bottle and a genie comes out to tell him he can have whatever he requests, but all the lawyers get twice as much? So he thinks a minute and decides to donate a kidney.
It’s a horrible comparison but freedom of speech..
Most women having abortions are unmarried. 85%. They aren’t happily married women living in a home with a 2 car garage.
Try working on marriage..
Ah, a mother’s duty.
Babies are parasites; aren’t you special?
In the same way as a 25 year old living in his parents basement is parasitic. People gaming the system are parasitic.
Curious. While all of Europe is terribly concerned about very low reproduction rates (of Europeans), they are totally committed to helping abortion rights activism, even to arresting those supporting natural birth.
Scotland’s fertility rate is 1.25 children per woman, far below the 2.1 needed to avoid demographic collapse. Scotland is committing suicide. If they cared about their long-term survival, or even the ability to support pensioners, their policies would be encouraging more live births.
P.S. Scotland is not alone in committing suicide. Most of western Europe is no different.
The low rates result from high costs, both social and economic. Farmers slaughter entire herds and plow them under if the meat will cost more to deliver to market than they can sell it for. The cost to raise a child in Europe apparently averages €240,000 for each child from age 5 to 18. This occurs when the parents are at their lowest earning ability. The price is so high that both parents need a job, nearly entirely eliminating their ability to spend time with the child. Who does have time? The unemployed on the public dole.
The worry about pensioners and so forth? Odd. Because the overall economic output has continued to increase while the population growth has slowed. The money from that increase just happens not to be going to the middle and lower class in the form of wages. On an unrelated note, Elon Musk is worth more than the holdings of roughly 18 Million of those in the bottom 50% of the population ranked by wealth. In the USA “the top 0.1% (about 340,000 people) hold 14% of national wealth, which is 4-5x more than the bottom 170,000,000. ”
With that amount siphoned out I can see why the middle class feels they cannot afford to raise children.
It’s not siphoned out. It’s money creation. If Musk stop creating there’d be money removed and not created. What you might want is 49 percent of Musks created money leaving 51 as a voting block. You can do that now via contracts
^^^ the salary of Musk employees take that as cash and stocks of course reinvesting in Musk. Would that work?
Sick of tax the rich
Are you saying white people committed self inflicted genocide? Why
European nations’ fertility rates are in a “death spiral,” which means Europeans, Caucasians, are in a “death spiral,” which means, if continued, Caucasians will soon vanish from the earth.
Caucasian European women became men, and babies became nonexistent.
Listen to the applause from Democrats.
____________________________________________
“[We gave you] a republic, if you can keep it.”
– Ben Franklin
_________________
You couldn’t.
Tsk, tsk, tsk, from Robert The Bruce and Braveheart to this. Sir Walter Scott would be ashamed. There is a reason for a border around your tribe – just search any historical village, as far back as we can excavate, and you will find walls around them and now you know why; to keep out those who do not share your values.
As unpleasant as that may sound to Co-existers and and the “Peace” movement, it is not human nature. The sooner we eliminate the “utopia is just around the corner if we only do this…” ideology, the safer and saner each village will become.
As a post script I will add that Neanderthal excavations show no signs of any wall constructions around their dwellings and look what happened to them.
For whatever reason, I’m suddenly reminded of a cartoon my son watched in the 1990’s called Ren & Stimpy. I do not know anything about it, other than he was laughing hysterically. He explained a scene where the characters were looking for a parking spot. (Not sure I recall the exact facts but the point here is the same) There was a sign that said “Don’t even think about parking here”. A parking enforcement officer arrived and said “Gotcha!” I imagine that 6-year olds in Scotland would think it’s educational, not humorous.
Keep women affordable, available, reusable, and taxable, and the “burden” (demos-cracy) of evidence aborted, sequestered in darkness, at the twilight fringe… is an episode of The Outer Limits. #NoJudgment #NoLabels #LoveLoses
Abortion! What is it good for?
All’s fair in lust and abortion?
Progress (i.e. [unqualified] monotonic change): one step forward, three steps backward.
Human rites (e.g. selective-child, one-child, no-Jews, warlock trials, virgin sacrifices, “burden” relief) in Diversity (i.e. class-disordered) culture is a wicked solution with far-left precedents, are performed for social, clinical, criminal, political, and climate progress. #LoveTrumpsHate #HateLovesAbortion
Memba McLibel case? Longest in British history? Crooked judges made fools of themselves rubber stamping at every turn, only to lose in ECHR.
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-68224
Orwell’s 1984 arrived in his UK in 2025, Ministry of Truth and Thought Police in the Land of Political Correctness, where NeoMarxist tolerance of left speech is married to intolerance of right speech – Herbert Marcuse’s dream of 1965 (´A Critique of Pure Tolerance’) has finally, and tragically, come true 😥
This case is where Turley veers into questionable turf on free speech, essentially elevating invasions of privacy as “speech”.
Do you remember the Westboro Baptist case? Put yourself in the shoes of a family holding a funeral for a son killed in action in Iraq. Some weirdo who believes the U.S. military is promoting homosexuality decides to organize a protest march outside this solemn church ceremony.
The local community was aghast at the repugnant grandstanding, this attempt to humiliate, dishonor and disrespect this serviceman and his grieving family because “he thought he could”. The family sued (Synder v. Phelps) and won a sizable judgment from a Jury of ordinary Americans upholding standards of public decency. Upon appeal, a Judge in the 4th Circuit nullified the Jury’s verdict, claiming this deranged individual’s “free speech” rights allowed him to defile Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder’s last measure of devotion to his nation.
And thus, the community’s power to defend norms of civility against outrageous, unhinged individualism (deranged and misinformed by conspiracy theory) was further chipped away by an elitist, aloof Federal Judge.
You don’t think the Jury in Synder v. Phelps considered the 1st Amendment? I can assure you Phelps’ lawyer argued it strongly. But, here’s the clincher: Phelps wasn’t arrested. He wasn’t prosecuted. The government made no law challenging his “speech”. This was a clash between one citizen and another. In civil lawsuits, the government is not a party to the case, rather it acts neutrally to provide a Judge, courtroom and Jury. The Jury listens to the facts and decides the verdict — liable or not — and if liable, assigns a $ judgment. The person sued cannot be sent to prison, because only criminal law holds that power.
What kind of federal Judge misunderstands something as basic as the 1st Amendment? It precludes government from lawmaking and prosecuting. It leaves to the citizens the right to challenge one another for libel, slander and other harms (yes, involving public speech). The Jury in Snyder got it right. There is something very perverse in our system of law that allows a single Judge to nullify a group of 12 citizens bringing common-sense justice to a gross affront to community norms.
That Turley sides with the norms-buster I find quite alarming — he gives too much power to individuals with anti-social impulsivity and zealotry, while stripping the surrounding community of their power to define and enforce standards of conduct that that fall outside the umbrella of criminal law. That weakens culture. It shreds civility.
The speech that the Founders sought to protect was that conveying a diversity of opinion on public matters, but expressed within the bounds of civility and mental-wellbeing. It wasn’t handing a microphone to the mentally ill, nor the public stage to performative, manipulative theatrical infowarriors. While constraining legislators and prosecutors, 1A leaves to the community at large the use of lawsuits to uphold standards of public decorum.
The UK case? I agree with Turley that they would be better off to NOT have government directly policing public speech. However, I’m on the side of the community (and civil Juries) to make judgments about transgressions of privacy and civility. Take that power away, and we end up ceding culture to the self-serving zealot, the paranoid dimwit, the defeatist misanthrope, and the depraved anarchist, and the foreign enemy reaching across borders to destroy us. There’s a balancing act to free speech, without which productive discourse descends into rage.
This is brilliant. Thank you pbinca. Professor, take note.
Wrong. Both of you.
In Snyder, there was a 1,000 foot buffer zone in place, (which the “offenders” abided by).
In Rose Doherty’s case, there was a 600-foot buffer, which apparently she breached.
In the Snyder case, Ch. J. discussed time, place manner./
In Snyder, hateful and ugly things were said/displayed. In Rose Doherty’s case, she was silent, with a peaceful poster.
Turley is lamenting the increasing and tightening controls.
This too is true and pb, is showing what pt is lamenting. It’s not a true difference but the government is not involved in free speech censorship as the UK passes laws.
It’s very well done and focused by binca.
Turley is condoning targeted harassment, particularly for self-promotion, from people who would get no notice if they weren’t bullying people.
Will you then offer your services to help us identify the self-serving zealots among us? How much do you propose to charge?
No individual should make such decisions. The wisdom of our Founders was to take a fairly random sampling of 12 community members, and if they can all agree after hearing adversarial presentations, the judgment is reached on such tricky questions.
We agree (I think) that putting this decision power in one person’s hands is a terrible idea, because there are many arrogant types with their own interests in mind who would abuse that power.
Hats off, pb, and take a bow! What a remarkable realignment. Bravo.
It would seem that the Scottish police have so little to do that they have to troll and patrol the streets to keep them clean of people speaking or thinking.
How fall the empire has fallen.
Yes it is. It’s amazing to me that in 250 years the Empire still has not learned the free speech lesson that contributed to the loss of their very, very valuable North American colonies.
And they still exist to this day.
The loss of the colonies had more to do with the black marketeers selling tea for less than taxed tea, only for the King to eliminate the tax and undercut the criminal imports. There was also the writing on the wall that the British Empire was pulling away from slavery, a key component to the profitability of the colonies. Of course it sells better to try to claim the moral high ground when many of the key players run forced labor camps.
it has nothing to do with “free speech”
The Left can say ANYTHING!
This has to do with disagreeing with the government!
The Left/Globalists are set on destroying their countries…The WEST!
If you disagree…you will be JAILED
This is redline danger!!!!
so disagreeing with British/Scottish Government is a crime?
Yes, just as it was 250 years ago.
Yes in matters of speech and thought .
these people best FIGHT NOW… The Fascists…just like 1930’s German National Socialists….don’t play NICE!
The writing has been on the wall for the UK for years, I don’t think it’s possible for them to course correct at this point, and the rest of Western Europe is close behind. Our 1A and 2A have become a very thin line, and our left’s campaign to demonize them have become a full blown crusade. Everyone in a conformist society thinks they are one of the select few until they find out they aren’t, and fear is not freedom. I have never in my life seen conformity like that of our modern left.
And then, here in the US, Savannah Antao was interviewing a woman about abortion when the woman being interviewed punched her without provocation, except the provocation of being challenged about the wisdom of “abortion rights”. The entire incident was caught on film, but the charges were dropped. It appears that the prosecutor’s office failed to meet a filing deadline. The prosecutor? Alvin Bragg. The same Alvin Bragg who wasted an incredible amount of time and money prosecuting Daniel Penny, who committed no crime. And Donald Trump, for maybe committing a misdemeanor that occurred long before the statute of limitations expired. Perhaps Alvin needs a course in time management? Or equal justice under the law? Or maybe he should just be voted out of office.
Good morning! That subject was massacred two days ago this platform:
https://jonathanturley.org/2025/09/27/new-york-strip-bragg-drops-charges-against-woman-who-attacked-pro-life-advocate/
The UK keeping up with its history of fear of free speech.
Really outdoing itself.
What I don’t understand is how its leadership or its citizenship can condone this government abuse.
leadership? LOL
Globalists are picked on the basis of if they will DESTROY THE WEST!
WAKE UP UK!
NYC with twin towers gone and mamdani on the horizon is territory lost . Fly another flag and no federal money.
Bragg’s selective abuse of the law has caused so much grief and suffering for innocent citizens, that I’m not sure what punishment is adequate. He is clearly an evil man.
“Looks like you’ve had a little too much to think…”
Ano
Or just maybe. You had to much to drink
Dustoff, the anon was mocking the Scottish police for arresting Rose Docherty for offering to speak to women in reconsidering in getting an abortion. Or at least that was my take on their post.
The denial of free speech is something like the Cookie Monster. No amount of it is enough. It feeds on its own hunger. There is no stopping point, wherein the liberals say, “That’s enough.” This insatiable hunger grows, now to the arrest of a benign 75 year-old simply expressing an opinion. It will not be long before children will be asked to report their parents for errant unauthorized speech. Wait! Haven’t we heard this before? Somewhere in Europe I think – not that long ago.
You make an analogy using the Sesame St. Cookie Monster? Folks, this is why the USA is deep, deep shite.
He’s pointing out a tactic, I think? It the cookies that are good until you vomit? The tactic is to make people sick on free speech until they vomit murder? The left is doing that indeed.
Watch the lefty contrarian morons come here and argue that Turley is wrong and Europe is right.
And your comment is the start.
Do you really consider yourself a conservative?
Do you?
@T. Moore
No, and I never have considered myself a ‘conservative’. That is your tiny-minded assumption. Only trolls in their myopic bubbles would ever assume the stance of thinking simply disagreeing with them is somehow ‘right wing’. Broaden your horizons and find the clarity to see that party and ideology are irrelevant. We are either free or we are not. I prefer to be free. Your points are not salient, nor are they backed by history or anyone’s personal experience. Try thinking or doing something your professors or employers didn’t program you to, preferably out of kindness. I know indoctrination is tough to overcome, and personal autonomy can be daunting at times, but people have managed to do it through millennia. So can you, if you want.
Speech codes are wrong. They produce culture wars and provoke violence. Enforcing them criminally exacerbates the effect.
I’m of the same opinion, but it seems the participants here are very willing to practice censorship by bullying and insulting commenters for reasons of opinion difference. Too bad the participants here don’t practice what they preach.
You mean the typical Lib Ano who throw insults at anyone who thinks different.
Is that really the best you can do?