1

The Regional Court in Katowice has finally acquitted a volunteer of the Pro – Right to Life Foundation who had previously been convicted of “placing an indecent drawing” — said to be a banner showing the effects of abortion.

2

The court of first instance imposed a fine of PLN 1,000 on her, treating the photograph as a “drawing” and attributing the act to her, even though the activist did not physically hold the banner — it was held by other people acting on their own.

3

Lawyers of the Ordo Iuris Institute, who represented the activist, argued that the court of first instance had adopted an erroneous, overly broad interpretation of the concept of a drawing. They also pointed out that, under the established case law of the Supreme Court and the common courts, even a message that arouses controversy cannot automatically be deemed indecent.

4

The court of second instance upheld the appeal and acquitted the volunteer, stating in its oral reasons that the drastic or controversial nature of the content presented does not necessarily amount to indecency within the meaning of Article 141 of the Polish Code of Offenses.

A pro-life assembly during the so-called Equality March

An activist of the Pro – Right to Life Foundation has been acquitted by the Regional Court in Katowice of the charge of publicly presenting an indecent drawing. The case concerned an assembly held on September 2, 2023, in Katowice’s Market Square. The defendant, who has been involved with the Pro – Right to Life Foundation for well over a decade, was the organizer of a lawful, duly notified public assembly held in connection with the so-called Equality March — a gay pride parade — taking place in Katowice at the same time. The purpose of the assembly was to voice opposition to abortion and to present a position in the debate on the protection of human life at the prenatal stage.

The assembly was peaceful in nature — its participants stood calmly, prayed, and displayed banners, including one bearing a photograph depicting the effects of abortion, together with a text. There were no incidents, no violence, no threats, and no disturbance of public order. The police who intervened at the scene likewise concluded that no offense had been committed there. Importantly, the organizer herself did not hold the banner — it was held by other adults, aware of their participation, who took up this activity on their own during the assembly.

Despite this, the Katowice-West District Court, by a judgment of May 6, 2026 (ref. III W 500/24), found the activist guilty of an offense under Article 141 of the Code of Offenses, attributing the act to her by holding that the people physically holding the banner acted as her “human tools.” The court further held that the photograph placed on the banner constituted a “drawing” within the meaning of the provision, and that its public presentation was “indecent” because — in the court’s assessment — it violated the moral norm requiring respect for human remains. The court also found that the defendant had acted intentionally and imposed on her a fine of PLN 1,000 — as much as two-thirds of the maximum amount provided for under that provision.

Errors in the District Court’s ruling

The defense challenged the judgment in its entirety in favor of the defendant, pointing to a series of errors, each of which — in the view of the Ordo Iuris lawyers — undermined the possibility of attributing liability to her. The appeal noted that the evidence did not permit a finding that the organizer herself had placed the “drawing.” The people holding the banner were independent, aware participants in the assembly who had voluntarily taken up this activity — nothing in the case file indicated that they had acted under compulsion, in error, or without awareness of the significance of their own conduct. The mere fact that the defendant served as the organizer of the assembly did not justify identifying her with the direct perpetrator of the act.

Second, the defense accused the court of an erroneous interpretation of the concept of a drawing, which in ordinary language denotes a composition of lines made on a surface, consisting in applying visual features to that surface with appropriate tools, and not a photograph. The defense counsel also challenged the first-instance court’s equation of “indecency” with the drastic and shocking character of the material. Citing the established line of case law of the Supreme Court and the case law of the common courts, the appeal argued that the drastic nature of a message is not the same as its indecency, understood as shamelessness, lewdness, or vulgarity. Photographs documenting the effects of abortion, presented in an informational and educational context, have repeatedly been held by the common courts and the Supreme Court not to satisfy the element of “indecency” within the meaning of Article 141 of the Code of Offenses.

In addition, the defense emphasized the absence of intent on the defendant’s part — she did not regard the photograph presented as indecent, but as documentation of the effects of abortion and part of her efforts on behalf of the protection of life; her belief in that matter was supported by several hundred rulings of the common courts, a significant portion of which concern the activity of the Pro – Right to Life Foundation. Over the course of her many years of activity in the Foundation, the activist has never been convicted by a final judgment of any crime or offense, and all proceedings conducted against her had ended in acquittal, discontinuance, or a refusal to initiate proceedings. The defense relied, among other things, on several favorable Supreme Court judgments issued in recent years in analogous cases, as well as on decisions of several district courts that refused to initiate proceedings or discontinued cases against the defendant on the ground that the conduct did not constitute a prohibited act. Importantly, on the same day and in connection with the same assembly, another district court refused to initiate proceedings against the remaining people who physically held the same banner.

A photo showing the truth about abortion is not “indecent”

The Regional Court in Katowice upheld the arguments of the appeal and acquitted the volunteer. In the oral reasons for its ruling, the court devoted the most attention to the interpretation of the concept of “indecency,” emphasizing that the drastic or controversial nature of the material presented is not tantamount to its indecency within the meaning of the Code of Offenses. Material that evokes strong emotions, shocks, or provokes objection from some viewers need not, on that account, infringe the interests legally protected by Article 141 of the Code of Offenses.

Although the case formally concerned a single incident, it forms part of a broader, long-running dispute over the limits of freedom of assembly and freedom of speech in the public debate on abortion. The appellate court’s ruling confirms that law enforcement authorities and the courts may not equate the drastic or controversial nature of a message with its legal indecency — a distinction of key importance for the protection of freedom of expression in matters of social significance, such as the debate on the protection of life.

See also:

Source of cover photo: iStock