Court in Bolesławiec acquits anti-abortion activist. It concerned a shocking banner in the market square

Judge of the District Court in Bolesławiec Marcin Rygiel acquitted on April 24, 2026, a man accused of an offense under Article 141 of the Code of Petty Offenses, namely causing public scandal by displaying shocking content.

The case concerned an incident on May 3, 2025, in Bolesławiec’s market square. According to the charge, the accused, a resident of Wrocław, who was the organizer and a participant in the gathering, was allegedly displaying a banner showing a bloody and torn-apart human fetus.

The court did not share this assessment. The grounds for the judgment stated that Article 141 of the Code of Petty Offenses concerns violations of public decency primarily related to the sexual or physiological sphere. In the court’s view, displaying an image of a human fetus—although it may be perceived as shocking, disturbing or emotionally charged—does not fall into this category.

The court also drew attention to the interpretation of the provision itself. It emphasized that the person who “places” indecent content in a public place is liable, rather than someone who merely displays it. In the court’s assessment, the accused’s conduct did not meet this criterion.

The grounds also addressed the social and constitutional context. The court indicated that abortion is one of the important issues in public debate and that, in a democratic state governed by the rule of law, the various sides of the dispute should be able to express their views in public space.

At the same time, the court noted that although the form of the message used by the accused may be controversial and may be considered excessively shocking, it does not in itself constitute a prohibited act under the applicable laws.

Following the acquittal, the court charged the State Treasury with the costs of the proceedings and ordered reimbursement of the accused’s defense costs. The judgment is not final.

This is not the first judgment in a similar case involving the same man. In the past, the District Court in Bolesławiec found the anti-abortion activist guilty in connection with displaying similar banners, but in one of the cases the judgment was changed by Judge Robert Bednarczyk of the District Court in Jelenia Góra, who acquitted the accused.

Actions involving the display of shocking images of fetuses are cyclical and appear regularly in Bolesławiec, usually as part of gatherings organized every month.

Editorial comment:

The judgment reflects an increasingly visible divergence in case law concerning the display of shocking content in public spaces. On the one hand, courts—as in this case—emphasize freedom of expression and the lack of grounds for considering such images “indecent.” On the other hand, there is also a contrary line of case law, represented, among others, by the Supreme Court.

In its decision of February 16, 2023 (I KK 471/22), the Supreme Court expressly stated that placing large-format photographs of bloody human fetuses in a public place conflicts with social and moral norms, and that the images themselves—in the context of their public display—may be considered indecent within the meaning of Article 141 of the Code of Petty Offenses. Similarly, in another ruling of October 12, 2023 (I KK 50/23), it was emphasized that the punishability of such actions may result from infringing the dignity belonging to the fetuses depicted in the photographs.

In practice, this means that identical conduct—in this case, the regular display of the same banners by the same person—may be assessed by the courts in entirely different ways. Bolesławiec had already seen convictions in similar cases, which further demonstrates the extent of this lack of uniformity.

This raises a genuine interpretive problem: where is the boundary between freedom of expression and protecting public space from shocking content? This is particularly important when—as the evidence showed—the audience for such messages also includes accidental passersby, including children, who do not participate in any debate but simply use the city’s public space.

Friday’s ruling does not close this discussion. Rather, it shows that the absence of a clear line of case law means that the assessment of the same events may depend on the particular judicial panel and its interpretation of the law.