One complainant told the court that Soho should be regarded as a “safe space” for LGBTQ people, according to the Christian Legal Centre (CLC), which supported Johnson.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) relied on this assessment in advancing its case, claiming that it was relevant given the nature of the material distributed by Johnson.
Johnson’s legal team argued that this was an attempt to apply a separate legal standard to a specific geographic location, in effect creating a “gay buffer zone”.
Although Johnson was acquitted, the proceedings raise wider questions about protections for freedom of speech in the United Kingdom. They also fuel concerns that different standards of lawful expression could be applied in areas associated with particular communities.
LGBTQ “Safe Spaces”
The case against Johnson was brought after two complainants said they were distressed by his tract’s treatment of homosexuality and LGBTQ issues. One charge collapsed, but the CPS proceeded with the other.
The CPS took up the complainant’s characterization of Soho as a “safe space”, marking what the CLC believes was the first time the public prosecutor pursued a prosecution of this kind on a geographical “safe space” basis.
However, the court was unconvinced. While it found that Johnson’s material was offensive and caused upset, the prosecution failed to prove it was unlawful. In addition to acquitting Johnson, it required the CPS to pay the defense’s costs.
Johnson – who said he had left his bisexual lifestyle in his 50s after a religious conversion – accepted that he would not use the tract again, but maintained that his purpose in distributing it had been to evangelize, not to spread hatred or to intimidate.
Andrea Williams, chief executive of the CLC, called the prosecution’s reliance on Soho as an LGBTQ safe space “deeply troubling”.
She warned that no part of London can “become a censorship zone” in which “lawful Christian beliefs” are subjected to a different standard “because some people find them offensive”.
Abortion Safe Zones
But religious expression and free speech are already restricted in some areas.
Over the past five years, England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland have all introduced such zones around abortion providers. The measures have attracted considerable controversy.
A series of cases has already been brought against individuals for praying and other religious activity within a safe zone. Critics increasingly argue that the laws restrict free expression and criminalize prayer.
While some cases have ended in acquittals or dropped charges, others have resulted in convictions. Adam Smith-Connor was convicted in England in 2024 after praying silently within a buffer zone, while retired pastor Clive Johnston was convicted in Northern Ireland in 2026 of preaching within a safe-access zone.
Beyond individual convictions, opponents of the laws argue that the process itself creates a chilling effect on Christians and pro-lifers.
Although Johnson was ultimately acquitted, he spent almost two years with the case hanging over him. Williams urged the CPS to learn “urgent lessons” from the case and “stop dragging peaceful Christian evangelists through the criminal courts”.
Attacks on Free Speech
Williams’ warning comes amid mounting claims that free speech, particularly religious expression, is under attack in the UK.
For instance, the CLC and Free Speech Union argue that a draft bill that seeks to ban “abusive conversion practices” could leave parents and ministers of religion at risk of prosecution for upholding biological reality and teaching Christian beliefs regarding sexuality.
Meanwhile, British police forces have come under sustained criticism for launching investigations into a number of individuals over comments made on social media platforms. One high-profile case involved the arrest of gender-critical comedian Graham Linehan on suspicion of inciting violence in posts on X. No further action was subsequently taken against him in relation to those posts.
Nevertheless, politicians and policy experts continue to push for the government to exert greater control over the content of speech online, while critics accuse prosecutors of trying to expand the logic of safe zones.
If the principle of safe spaces were taken to its logical extreme, it could see Christians criminalized for expressing their faith in a Muslim community or even a secularist advocate prosecuted for spreading his or her message in a religious neighborhood.
If such a logic were to win out, the free market of ideas would quickly fragment and an already cold climate for free speech and religious expression would turn frigid.
