Redditors are arguing that because the case in question is about prolonged harassment that makes it fine, as reading over the info the name calling appears to have been an intentional choice that someone knew annoyed the person filing.
However...
This case now sets precedent towards name calling under that specific term*. Regardless of intent. So future cases can now argue this case as a point in their defense when prosecuting someone while any counter points need to establish how their case differs from the OP story. Sure that can happen but then that requires the judges involved to not be complete asshats and make their own decision on things for whatever personal reasons are involved.
As ever Redditors not seeing the forest for the trees.
*Edit: As well as opening up avenues towards other terms "someone" may not like despite whatever common usage there is. "Bird", and other related avian terms are quite widespread in various parts of the UK as someone points out in another comment [hens, chicks, ducks] and there are plenty of other animal based terms used like "stag" ['stag do' being the bachelor equivalent of a 'hen night'].
While not actually an animal based term I'm waiting for the day a wokester tries to use this avenue as a reason the term "dear" is wrong despite it not even being the same spelling as "deer". That retarded twitch furry will be all the ammo someone needs to point out that trying to remove the term is transphobic by using their own idiocy against them, and that's before even getting on to the point that DEER DON'T EAT GRASS YOU STUPID FUCK!
Two problems here, not that the ruling judge will have possessed the insight to realise them.
First, the basis for this is that men and only men call women "birds" , once again disenfranchising women by removing their agency in a subject.
Second, related to the first, what are they going to do when women ["self identify"]/call themselves "birds"? Are "hen parties" now sexist? What about "ducky"? Or "chicks"/"chick-a-dee"?
What about when it's particular ethnic groups making the comments?
Meta commentary on my post: as the questions go on and on the judge, and those connected to pushing for this, will realise they've fucked up and they'll likely be thinking how to backtrack on this before it actually gets tested in ways they didn't want it to be.
As with almost any modern day standards to determine whether sexism/racism is taking place, it will be entirely inconsistent and based on the idea that women can never be sexist but men definitely are if a woman feels it to be the case, which is a position so thoroughly baked into the mindset of the left and, frankly, much of the right, that the idea that they're being hypocrites or might have to walk this back to maintain the illusion of gender-blind rule of law won't even occur to them.
What a joke the UK has become.
Redditors are arguing that because the case in question is about prolonged harassment that makes it fine, as reading over the info the name calling appears to have been an intentional choice that someone knew annoyed the person filing.
However...
This case now sets precedent towards name calling under that specific term*. Regardless of intent. So future cases can now argue this case as a point in their defense when prosecuting someone while any counter points need to establish how their case differs from the OP story. Sure that can happen but then that requires the judges involved to not be complete asshats and make their own decision on things for whatever personal reasons are involved.
As ever Redditors not seeing the forest for the trees.
*Edit: As well as opening up avenues towards other terms "someone" may not like despite whatever common usage there is. "Bird", and other related avian terms are quite widespread in various parts of the UK as someone points out in another comment [hens, chicks, ducks] and there are plenty of other animal based terms used like "stag" ['stag do' being the bachelor equivalent of a 'hen night'].
While not actually an animal based term I'm waiting for the day a wokester tries to use this avenue as a reason the term "dear" is wrong despite it not even being the same spelling as "deer". That retarded twitch furry will be all the ammo someone needs to point out that trying to remove the term is transphobic by using their own idiocy against them, and that's before even getting on to the point that DEER DON'T EAT GRASS YOU STUPID FUCK!
Two problems here, not that the ruling judge will have possessed the insight to realise them.
First, the basis for this is that men and only men call women "birds" , once again disenfranchising women by removing their agency in a subject.
Second, related to the first, what are they going to do when women ["self identify"]/call themselves "birds"? Are "hen parties" now sexist? What about "ducky"? Or "chicks"/"chick-a-dee"?
What about when it's particular ethnic groups making the comments?
Meta commentary on my post: as the questions go on and on the judge, and those connected to pushing for this, will realise they've fucked up and they'll likely be thinking how to backtrack on this before it actually gets tested in ways they didn't want it to be.
As with almost any modern day standards to determine whether sexism/racism is taking place, it will be entirely inconsistent and based on the idea that women can never be sexist but men definitely are if a woman feels it to be the case, which is a position so thoroughly baked into the mindset of the left and, frankly, much of the right, that the idea that they're being hypocrites or might have to walk this back to maintain the illusion of gender-blind rule of law won't even occur to them.
BA BA BA BA BA BA BA BA BA BA BA BA BA BA BA BA BA BA BA BA BA BA BA BA BA BA BA BA BA
MMM MOW MOW BA BA MMM MOW MOW
BA BA BA MMM MOW MOW BA BA MMM MOW MOW
Man, I miss when Family Guy was still kinda funny.
Cripes. Guess they never heard the joke: "Why do men call us birds? Because we tend to pick up worms."
"What do you do when a bird shits on your car?"
"Don't ask her for a second date."
What the fuck. Is the judge a women by any chance?
I'd be doxxing myself to a ten mile radius if I said what I call women, but in light of this I'll consider switching to 'bird'.
Laws don't matter.
This is the problem with hate speech laws.
Given control of the context, anything can be hate speech.