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

This wasn't the point. The point is that "arrested for freedom of speech" is nonsense.

However, nobody is claiming we do have absolute freedom of speech in the UK - no country does. If you want to argue that we should, you can do so, but don't talk about it like it's a given that we should. That is however another argument altogether.

If you think nobody should ever suffer any consequence for saying anything, that's an extreme position that few people hold. The right wing morons you are getting this rubbish from usually, when pressed, turn out to mean that everybody should be allowed to say anything that they agree with.
Should I be free to stand outside your house and tell people that you're a paedophile murderer? The absolute freedom of speech you claim to support would allow that.

Being arrested for words means we do not have real freedom of speech in the UK. So I stand by my statements.

'What you want to do is introduce a right of freedom of speech that allows anyone to say anything. Not make anything illegal at all. Correct?' Evidently, as that is what real freedom of speech is.

Thought of another one to add to mine, I’ll even remove middle lane hoggers for this.

People who respond with a variation of send them home on police force Facebook posts where the accused / convicted has a non English sounding name. The punishment would be for them to go back to school and start learning how to function as a human being in society again.

Ok, firstly "arrested for exercising their right of freedom of speech" is not the same as "arrested for freedom of speech".

Secondly, they were not arrested for "exercising their right of freedom of speech", they were arrested for saying things that were not covered by any right of freedom of speech.
Please, this is obviously important to you, so think about it and try and get it right instead of just dribbling out nonsense about "arrested for freedom of speech".

What you want to do is introduce a right of freedom of speech that allows anyone to say anything. Not make anything illegal at all. Correct?

Nobody can be arrested anywhere for "freedom of speech", ffs. A right of freedom of speech stops people being arrested, as has already been explained to you.
Please learn what things mean if you are going to talk about them. It's not semantics. It shows that you have a basic grasp of what you are talking about, rather than just parroting stuff from right-wing twitter accounts you don't properly understand.

Real freedom of speech doesn't exist in Britain, so technically nobody can officially be arrested for 'freedom of speech,' that doesn't mean it does not happen though, simply under the guise of another name.

So you can split hairs about the semantics or terminology if you like, but I will credit you with the intelligence to realise my point.

'Nobody is arrested for freedom of speech. For example, in your first link, "harassment, malicious communications, and causing a nuisance on school property" is what the couple were questioned about.' That is the thing isn't it, anyone can accuse you of anything under the hate speech laws and it will be investigated. The powers that be can't openly admit they are arresting people for speaking it has to be justified in some way or another.

Just because the couple were questioned about the trumped up accusations it does not mean this isn't an infringement on freedom of speech. They were not charged so it proves the bullshit statement the police put out was tosh and the couple were indeed arrested for exercising their freedom of speech.

1. Preferring cats to dogs.
2. Expecting people to care about your wedding.
3. "Would of", "could of" etc. being used in public.

1 - Ultra-bright headlights.
2 - Populist politicians.
3 - Religion.

None of those people have been "arrested for freedom of speech". If you are going to make "freedom of speech" your hill to die on, at least learn what it means.

I believe that poster is picking you up on your slightly misusing the phrase "freedom of speech".

Nobody is arrested for freedom of speech. For example, in your first link, "harassment, malicious communications, and causing a nuisance on school property" is what the couple were questioned about.

What you appear to be saying is that you would ban the arresting of people merely for saying / typing something. In other words, they would be protected from arrest by freedom of speech. So you would extend freedom of speech to all, rather than banning it.

Why didn't you get to your point sooner if you wanted an answer.

Plenty of people have been arrested for freedom of speech.

Police arrest parents who complained in school WhatsApp group – The Free Speech Union
Woman, 74, charged under abortion protest law in Glasgow - BBC News
Hundreds charged with online ‘speech crimes’ under Online Safety Act amid US free expression concerns – The Free Speech Union

Not to mention my little nugget of anecdotal evidence, where a friend had a knock on his door from local police warning him he could be arrested for saying a paedophile should be castrated on Facebook under a mugshot.

Who is anyone to determine what hate speech is? It can be as trivial as something that causes 'needless anxiety.' Up until a fortnight ago calling a transexual woman a man was hate speech.

It is better that we can all say what we want and the flakes need to toughen up.

I'm with you on that-outdated statement... I own a lot of Burberry.

As do most members of the Royal Family.Are they 'chavs', too?😂

Animal cruelty and as a PP said, this to include paying someone for the torture and imprisonment of animals in factory farms, we're not doing ourselves any favour as a species here. We're savages who are worse than other savages, as we know better.

Having children without knowing the first thing about being a parent AND undergoing a psychological assessment to see if you're capable of parenting effectively to a minimum standard, including the element of emotional intelligence, maturity and life ethic. I feel this is much more important than how much money anyone has.

Stamp duty.

Of course, this thread is (I assume) lighthearted.

Making things illegal doesn't stop them.
I may as well have written 'Burglary,rape, murder'...

1. Hangers - as useful as they are I hate the way they all cling together!
2. Pyjamas- the ones without a label on the inside back so you spend forever working out which is the right way around.
3. Whole groups having a full conversation in the middle of the aisles in supermarket. Get out my way ffs!

I've broken laws 2 and 3 already according to you!
We own a flat that we rent out at a decent rate and have had some great tenants over the years apart from one who ended up in prison for fraud - we are decent 'accidental' landlords.

We have a cat but she mainly sticks to our garden and is not a hunter.
Guilty as charged, take me down!

Three things I'd change.

1. People listening to music/videos/talking in restaurants/the train without headphones.
2. Anywhere public should be smoke free - you should only be able to smoke on your own property. Cigarettes and weed.
3. Ban Ultra processed foods - really 'bad' ones that 'claim' to be healthy.

Yes, and I asked, how do you arrest people for freedom of speech? To make something illegal, it makes sense for it to be something that actually happens.

Nobody is ever arrested and charged with "freedom of speech", it makes no sense at all. Some people are arrested and charged with "hate speech". Is what you mean that you want to make things that are currently defined as "hate speech" legal?

You are one of those rare things: a considerate person.

Did you not read the title of the thread?

What would you make illegal: I said arresting people for freedom of speech.

Anyone that uses the word "CHAV" should be smacked with a wet fish.

Do chavs still wear burberry?

It's not 2002 anymore

They use smaller lorries and vans when access is impossible so it can be done without the huge ones. It’s just cost cutting to use huge lorries that cause chaos in the locations not suited to them, ie housing estates, single track country roads etc.

My son lives in an area only accessible by one road from both directions. There are low/narrow bridges from both directions due to the main railway line bridges. The shops and petrol station between the bridges manage just fine. Petrol deliveries are by a smaller shorter tanker lorry, food and other shop deliveries are via Sprinter sized vans instead of artics even for a franchised shop part of a large chain, Spar!. When my son bought his bed and sofas for his flat, the shop asked about access and he told them about the low bridges - furniture arrived in a small van, not a big lorry!

It CAN be done. Huge Lorries need to keep to motorways, trunk roads and other main roads to stop the chaos and damage they cause on unsuitable roads.

@Morningup
Huge lorries? Would you be happy to go to the shops and have nothing on the shelves? Because the huge lorries deliver everything from food to fuel for your car, ridiculous comment

Dog shit.

Not paying child support where it is due.

Owen Jones.

I think you’re supposed to pick things that are actually enforceable