In the past two years, Ms Hayden has taken action against Father Ted creator Graham Linehan, barrister Adrian Yalland, Catholic commentator Caroline Farrow and academic Louise Moody among others.

Mrs Scottow told The Telegraph the verdict is a victory for freedom of speech that confirms no one has the right not to be offended.

This has been the hardest battle I have fought that has had a profound impact on every aspect of my life, from my career to my health and my marriage.

But it was necessary to enshrine one of the most fundamental rights of every living being in a democratic society - the right to freedom of speech that is now routinely attacked at such a fundamental level.

Women fighting for their rights against an aggressive LGBT lobby have been silenced for the past three years. I hope this judgment gives them hope.

Ms Hayden said the judgment encourages online trolls to abuse, dox and intimidate transgender persons, adding: This is unfortunate and a kick in the teeth to the entire LGBT community.

She said: I do not blame Scottow. She was entitled to appeal her conviction and congratulations must be extended to Scottow and her legal team. The higher judiciary have ordained that transgender people are legitimate targets. I for one will keep that in mind and respond accordingly.

A CPS spokesperson said: The Court of Appeals judgment concluded there was not enough evidence to convict the defendant for persistently making use of a public communications network to cause annoyance, inconvenience or anxiety, determining that the timing and level of communication exchanged online did not constitute a criminal offence.

This is a complex area of law and we will carefully consider the judgment, specifically in relation to comments made online and associated issues of free speech.

Toby Young, founder and director of the Free Speech Union, said: Lets hope this judgment sends a message to Chief Constables. Theyve been getting their officers to spend far too much time sifting through peoples social media accounts, like little offence archeologists. They should be policing our streets, not our tweets.

Bryn Harris, chief legal counsel of the Free Speech Union said the judgment was "a welcome reminder of when the law will step in to protect free speech."

He added: "We view this as a positive sign that the senior judiciary will exercise their jurisdiction forcefully, and control wayward judges in lower courts who cant seem to remember their ever-present obligation to protect freedom of expression.

"The judges in this case rightly recalled that the freedom to offend is not constrained by the facile obligation to be kind mooted by the magistrate below.

"The real value in this case is its limitation of the vexatious use of the Communications Act 2003 to inhibit freedom of expression.

"Twitter spats are just not the kind of conduct regulated by the provision the prosecution tried to rely on that section is directed against heavy-breathers and persistent hoax callers and the like.

"Those who, for whatever reason, are uncomfortable with free speech will still have other legal provisions to resort to. But this judgment removed one particular weapon from their armoury. This is progress, and further good news in light of the Harry Miller judgment."

The Police Federation's Simon Kempton said of investigating Twitter spats: Its an area where we would like to avoid having any involvement but there are always cases where individuals cross the line and cause some significant harm to others.

See the article here:

Exclusive: People must have the 'right to offend' without facing a police investigation - Telegraph.co.uk