I found this article interesting because it's on a very well regarded media law blog.
inforrm.org/2022/01/26/the-unbearable-loudness-of-cancellation-how-the-court-of-appeal-failed-free-speech-in-miller-v-college-of-policing-paul-wragg/
It's pretty amazing how biased Wragg is, and he doesn't seem to realise. Wragg doesn't think the police coming to your door to chastise you for a 'non hate crime incident' has any chilling impact on free speech whatsoever, and moans that the Miller case is all to do with right wing 'cancel culture'.
Some choice parts from the article: "the Court took its first misstep by categorising Mr Miller’s speech as an important contribution to a debate of public interest. In doing so it elevated both the speech itself (which the High Court had concluded were, collectively, ‘opaque, profane, or unsophisticated’) and the underlying debate – that trans women are not women – to the level of academic respectability by stating, repeatedly, that Mr Miller’s denigration of trans women is a credible contribution to public debate because it is shared by Kathleen Stock, amongst others, a former professor at the University of Sussex. It is deeply regrettable that the Court of Appeal would so readily embrace a position on a deeply divisive issue in favour of those that trumpet repressive politics and, worse, that it would imbue it with the imprimatur of academic respectability by proffering the views of an individual who is, at best, a controversial figure."
This is quite something. Apparently the debate whether trans women are really women is not 'academically respectable', because Kathleen Stock is a 'controversial figure' (my background is in academic philosophy, and there are many controversial philosophers like Peter Singer. Nevertheless, even though they are controversial they are still regarded as tip top academics. Stock is like that. She is controversial, but her credentials are impeccable.) Well, Prof. Wragg has certainly made it clear what side he is on!
The article then ends with this rather overdramatic point: "For those directly affected – the transitioned, the transitioning, and their loved ones – the daily grind of hostility towards them as they try to find themselves, to live their life, whilst asking for nothing more than compassion, is unbearable. To now find that the Court of Appeal – a supposed bastion of liberal principle –dignifies this senseless, abhorrent abuse and denigration of trans women and calls it ‘important’ legitimate debate on a matter of public interest is as devastating as it is inexcusable. Truly, the decision is a travesty of justice."
It's obvious to me what is going on here. Wragg is deeply sympathetic to the trans cause and obviously believes they are really women. Thus, any mocking, or unkind language towards trans women cannot be tolerated and the normal rules about article 10 free speech rights (that even offensive and shocking speech is protected) must go out the window. Usual legal principles must be warped and bent to protect trans individuals feelings at all costs, even if the price of this is members of the public being interrogated by police for posting a tasteless poem directed at no one in particular. There is no right to have nothing but compassionate speech directed at one's protected group (and lord knows women know this all too well. )