[nrawe]

Right, but that's not a free speach issue. I can critise a public officials handling of a situation, or disagree with a policy, or publicly protest a law, and not go to prison.

I cannot be wantonly offensive about a minister just because I don't like them, up to including threatening behaviour.

Free speach doesn't mean no rules/consequences.

[krona]

Have you ever sent anyone a message that later turned out to be false?[1] Do you have £50k on hand to defend yourself against the accusation that you knew it to be false when you sent it? Perhaps you'd rather spend 18 months on remand in the meantime, just to be sure you don't send anything else that might also be false, while we prepare your trial (which may or may not collapse due to a complete lack of evidence).

[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50/section/179

[nrawe]

You seem to have overlooked the clause 179.1.C. If I send a death threat to someone, or I incite violence by spreading misinformation (like happened in Southport) there are consequences.

That's what it covers, not a random tweet that says "I think the sky is actually green".

[krona]

Would accusing you of naivete cause "non-trivial psychological harm?"

[nrawe]

Of course not.

There are people facing genuine harassment, death threat, rape threat every day; that's what the law protects against.

If you were to dox me, threaten mine and my families life repeatedly, spread lies about me that convince other people to do the same, then that would be closer to the definition of _reasonable_ psychological harm.

We can see that scenario playing out for people right now, some of whom actually come to harm because of it.

Look at some of the hate directed at MP Jess Philips on Twitter recently based on downright lies, and the mob that stirred up as a result, as an example.