What about what I said is nonsense?
Are you saying that you have freedom of speech while a 19yr old posting lyrics from a rap song on her private Instagram page is censured and fined for doing so?
Are you saying your government can’t censor media outlets from certain topics?
Are you saying you have the right to defend yourself with some sort of force multiplier?
If you’re willing to explain why I’m wrong factually or philosophical, I’m willing to listen.
The judges correctly found a real risk of prejudicing the jury and like it or not, the UK judiciary take potential infringements on the fairness of a trial very seriously.
A right to a fair trial for others is at least as important as his free speech.
With the gun point I disagree strongly. London has a rate of 1.45 homicides per 100,000 people. Potentially 180 murders this year. This is fewer than most large cities in the US. Most people in the UK don't carry weapons and the rates of murder are significantly lower than in the US. Access to guns increases the ease of homicide. New York has decreased it's rate (although it's still above London's rate) by limiting access to guns.
You argued that the restrictions on press are justified, said nothing about free speech, and that you hopefully don’t need to defend yourself.
So it sounds like we agree on the basic premise I set forth, but disagree on the importance of it.