Tor is for anonymous browsing of the public internet, punching through firewalls (with bridges and pluggable transports), and publishing anonymous websites with hidden services (now called onion sites).
Freenet is for distributing samizdat. When you use Freenet, you store and distribute other people's data and traffic. This is fundamentally different than Tor, where you only route other people's traffic if you are a operating a Tor node. Tor has no notion of data storage; it is purely a routing network for traffic. Freenet, by contrast, is a distributed data store. Every Freenet user not only routes other user's requests, they also each store parts of encrypted files that are shared in the network.
This last part is problematic. When you use Freenet, you store other user's encrypted data, for retrieval from the distributed, peer-to-peer data store. To access data, you must know the symmetric encryption key for that data. This key also acts as routing information. To retrieve a file, you initiate connections to other Freenet users, asking them if they have parts of the encrypted file you want.
The problem here is that you are storing other people's data. That could be child porn or motivational videos for the Islamic State. You may not be able to read the information stored, for others, on your hard drive, but if the authorities already have the key (because some IS fanboy on a forum shared it, to give other people access to the data), then the authorities could determine that you have this info on your computer.
Freenet claims that their system gives you "plausible deniability," since you may, or may not possess the keys to decrypt the information on your drive, and since Freenet typically stores shards of files, rather than whole files, on any one hard drive. The problem is that Freenet's data keys are open secrets, by design, since it's a file sharing system: you share the key to share access to the information.
In the U.S., you could be protected (maybe, lol) under the same law that protects Tor exit node operators, since ISPs are not criminally liable for information that traverses their equipment. However, since Freenet is so unusual, in order to make that case, you would need a really good lawyer.
It's probably easier if you just don't store random pedophiles' encrypted child porn on your laptop, in the first place.
Freenet is an interesting idea. It's a great research project. I wouldn't use it.