Regarding the point that was mentioned earlier:
It strikes me that the difference between simply inaccurately reporting a message for vulgarity and abuse is intent. Someone who knows that the message they are reporting is not, by the common standards, vulgar, but reports it anyway—particularly someone who makes a pattern of this behaviour—is committing an abuse. Someone who simply misunderstands the feature, and truly believes that what they are reporting would be considered vulgar—or, at least, could be considered vulgar—by people in general, and not just by them or their character, is not committing abuse.
Unfortunately, in the general case, that's not easy to tell.
Fortunately, in this case, it was, and all the Magistrates have to rule on for now is this case.
