You are given the power to make three things illegal. What would you choose?

1. Ban any type of muscle dogs and ban anything like an Alsatian being kept unless licenced for security.
2. Rubbish roadworks - Utility companies remain responsible for their repairs for 5 years.
3. Cars without speed limiters, I'm sure the tech exists to ban anyone speeding.

Two drivers nearly came to blows at the junction outside the shop I'm working in today..

Jesus. No you don't!
Freedom of speech is an absolute.
You get an opinion on how much we should limit it.

Why can't you see the difference?

Oh, maybe I would ban those fleets of bikes who don't bother to move over when they have a chance. Which would probably mean defining how many could be in a group or how far they can go without letting others pass.

pornography

Social media and video games of certain types for kids - ie the ones designed like gambling to be addictive

Sticky traps for mice

'You don't get to have an opinion on things that are defined concepts.' I get to have an opinion on whether those 'defined concepts' actually constitute to what freedom of speech should be. Again, you don't get to tell anyone what they can have an opinion on.

Generally I think we need fewer laws, not more.
However I would make illegal:

1. social media and smartphones for under 18s
2. procuring/prescribing/supplying puberty blockers and cross sex hormones for under 18s.

God no. There are no "freedom of speech" laws. You don't need laws to give you the right to do something, you have a right to do anything there isn't a law against.
"People are being arrested for breaking hate speech laws" would suffice. If you like add "..hate speech laws which limit our freedom of speech too heavily in my opinion".
That would actually say what you mean instead of being nonsense.

How should I have phrased it so as not to offend your need to be pedantic. 'People are being arrested for breaching freedom of speech laws because we don't have freedom of speech' Does that suit you better?

'Now please, if you still can't understand it, just leave it at that. This is soul destroying.' Hop along then Cassidy.

I would ban fines for taking kids out in school time for a holiday and do it as many times as and when I like!!! Obviously I care about their education and that would be my priority.

You do understand, don't you, that I am not taking issue with what you think anyone should or should not be allowed to say.
This is all about your meaningless claim that "people are being arrested for freedom of speech". I have been trying, for almost a week, to show you why this makes no sense. Please don't post any more videos about how someone got arrested, or talk about cases. That's nothing to do with what I am saying.

People get arrested because they have breached laws which limit freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is an absolute theoretical right that is limited by different laws in different countries. You have issues with some of our laws which limit freedom of speech, but not others.

That's all my point is. Now please, if you still can't understand it, just leave it at that. This is soul destroying.

You don't get to have an opinion on things that are defined concepts.

"Freedom of speech" is not something that varies. The limits on freedom of speech can and do vary.

"Freedom of speech" is not applied anywhere. Limits on freedom of speech are.

Why can't you understand this?

'You don't get to have an opinion on what "freedom of speech" should be.' Erm, I absolutely do get to have an opinion on what I think freedom of speech should be. You don't get to decide what people are allowed to have an opinion on!

'Freedom of speech is a concept that is what it is.' Except that concept does and has changed. Freedom of speech and how that is applied looks different in the US does it not....

'Again if you stop just blarting out the words "freedom of speech" without properly understanding what they mean' I have explained numerous times what I deem freedom of speech to be, just because you disagree with that it does not mean I don't understand the difference between our current laws on what 'freedom of speech' permits vs real freedom of speech. Nor does it mean you can police my language, again awfully ironic of you.

'people will take you more seriously.' I don't care to be taken seriously by some rando on Mumsnut. This entire thread is not a serious one.

1. Discos at weddings and functions that are so loud no-one can hear each other talk. In fact just Discos at weddings and functions in general.

1. OAPs, and Mums with pushchairs from supermarkets and banks between 12 and 2pm.

1. Benefits cheats.

You don't get to have an opinion on what "freedom of speech" should be. Freedom of speech is a concept that is what it is. It's absolute freedom to say whatever you like.

You get to have an opinion on how much we should limit freedom of speech. You are happy to limit it with laws of libel and slander. You don't want to limit it with some laws we currently have that limit it in other ways.
Again if you stop just blarting out the words "freedom of speech" without properly understanding what they mean people will take you more seriously.

The difference between hate speech and slander is that one is open to interpretation and the other is not.

If you spread that I was a murdering paedophile online, this would easily be disproved and you would be up for slander.

If I called a transwoman a man and asked them not use my changing rooms at the gym this could be deemed hate speech. The laws are too vague and can be applied in anyway a judge sees fit, this opens them up to abuse, which is why we have seen the two tier justice recently.

'What you want, it finally appears, is to change the laws on hate speech to only cover things you personally think they should.' I have explained what I think freedom of speech should be.

"Nor should it be slanderous as this clashes with existing important laws."

Yeah. You know what laws about libel and slander do? They limit freedom of speech. In ways that we deem sensible.
Exactly the same as hate speech laws do.

What you want, it finally appears, is to change the laws on hate speech to only cover things you personally think they should. Fine, argue that. But don't try and dress it up as some human rights campaign.

'If you think nobody should ever suffer any consequence for saying anything, that's an extreme position that few people hold.' My position is that people should be allowed to say what they want in person and online without repercussions as long as it isn't threatening an individual with violence/death. Nor should it be slanderous as this clashes with existing important laws.

'Should I be free to stand outside your house and tell people that you're a paedophile murderer?' That would come under harassment and slander so no.

'The right wing morons you are getting this rubbish from.' Does being right wing automatically make someone a moron? You're quick to use your speech in a 'hateful' way, isn't that ironic. What makes you think I am unable to form an opinion on what I regard freedom of speech should look like, without having been influenced by the far right. Such an obvious assumption to make.

Should Lucy Connelly have been jailed for 3 years for her comments on X whilst Ricky Jones avoids jail and has his trial delayed until August...? Absolutely not.
Should parents be arrested in front of their children for messages in a school whatsapp group? Absolutely not. Should burning a religious book be an arrestable offence? Absolutely not.

I'd make it illegal for Mumsnetters to hold any public office where they get power to legislate over the lives of other people.

It's not all who are self-serving control freaks but there's definitely too many to take the risk.

Before anyone thinks that's coming from a sexist place, I am talking about members of both sexes.

Wildlife is no more special or deserving than cats. Wildlife itself eats wildlife. So this 'oh the poor wildlife that are killed' is batshit bonkers imo. Also I hope you have your front and backyard all enclosed because you wouldn't want bird shit in your yard... Or frog shit, or etc.

A load of fuss over nothing, when birds shit on your roof, lawn etc.

Or have a baby.

Well, firstly, I don't see why I should have to pay for things to put in my garden that I don't want there just to stop someone else's pet shitting on my lawn and digging in my flower beds.
But the law is in their favour unfortunately, so it is down to me, and not them, to stop their cat doing damage on my property. So I have used these cat deterrents, and let me tell, NONE of that crap works. None of it. Not orange peels, not mirrors, not horrible smelling spray, not lion poo, not male urine, not even those things that make a high pitched sound they don't like, which by the way, even if they did work, are horrible for kids to have to listen to.
Thirdly, stopping them coming into my garden does not stop them killing and endangering wildlife.

Keep the buggers inside!!

Not RTFT yet, but what's with the cat hate? You know you can put stuff on your garden that they dislike, right?

Mine, alcohol. What's it FOR? Having lived with people it's affected badly, (& therefore affected me) it's the first thing I'd get rid of.
Secondly, building on green belt land. There are enough brownfield sites but it would probably cost more to build piecemeal. When green belt's gone, it's never coming back.
Lastly, boat people, or the ones who get them here. Costing us BILLIONS, changing our country forever.

Another one: treating animals as disposable toys you can just dump at the shelter when you get a new girlfriend or piece.

1. Being hostile to cats.
2. As above
3. Same as 1 and 2.