The United States government has publicly criticised the prosecution of a British pro-life campaigner under English public-order laws, framing the case as a matter of fundamental free-speech and expression rights.

Officials in Washington said they are closely monitoring the legal situation of Livia Tossici-Bolt, a British pro-life advocate charged with breaching a ‘‘buffer zone’’ outside an abortion clinic in Bournemouth, Dorset, by holding a sign that read ‘‘Here to talk, if you want.’’ U.S. statements from the State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor said the United Kingdom should respect and protect freedom of expression, emphasising that peaceful expression is a core democratic right.

Officials noted that pro-life advocates have faced similar prosecutions in England, Scotland and Wales under ‘‘buffer zone’’ laws introduced in late 2024, which criminalise ‘‘influencing behaviours’’ near abortion clinics in designated zones.

The U.S. intervention is considered unusual given the close diplomatic relationship between London and Washington, and comes amid broader discussions about free speech protections in Western democracies.

Vice President J.D. Vance has previously voiced broader concern about restrictions on expression in Europe, but the State Department statement marked a rare direct comment on UK domestic legal proceedings.

U.S. officials said they were ‘‘monitoring’’ the case and reiterated that both free speech and religious liberty are essential elements of the shared democratic values that underpin U.S.-UK relations.

Ms. Tossici-Bolt, a retired medical scientist, told supporters that she was ‘‘grateful’’ for the U.S. attention to her case and criticised the prosecution as an example of ‘‘censorship’’ in Britain.

Her legal team, supported by advocacy groups urging the protection of expressive rights, argue that offering a peaceful invitation to conversation should not constitute a criminal offence.

Although ‘‘buffer zone’’ laws were introduced to protect patients from harassment near sensitive medical facilities, the enforcement against silent or non-confrontational activities has drawn scrutiny from civil liberties advocates.

British authorities have defended the buffer-zone legislation as a necessary tool to maintain public order and ensure access to health services without intimidation, noting that the laws were passed through the UK Parliament following consultations.

Government spokespeople have previously maintained that the measures are designed to balance free speech with the rights of clinic users to receive care without pressure or distress.

As Ms. Tossici-Bolt’s case proceeds toward verdict, the U.S. government’s comments have underscored ongoing tensions between domestic policy objectives and international expectations on fundamental freedoms, spotlighting how allied nations can diverge on legal interpretations of expressive rights.