[lordfrito]

I'm not sure I'm following you.

I agree, I'm against these kinds of laws (see previous post).

I agree with you, there are special protections given police offers, these are related to the power they are authorized by the state to wield that regular citizens cannot. I can sue you if you break down my door. But a kidnapper can't sue the SWAT team that broke down their door in the course of saving the kidnapped person inside.

Meanwhile, related to civil-rights issues, and workplace related issues, "Police Officers" are still just "normal people" and should have the same basic rights as normal people. Are you suggesting they shouldn't?

[semanticist]

I think you're conflating someone's job with a protected characteristic in the context of anti-discrimination and hate speech law. If a cop gets special laws to prevent people smirking at them, or 'being a cop' is considered a protected characteristic, that is not "having the same basic rights as normal people", it's having extra rights that you can choose to opt-into by getting a certain job.

A person cannot choose their race, sex, sexuality, gender identity, able-bodiedness, etc, that is why discriminating against them based on those grounds is inherently unfair and thus not allowed.

No one is born a cop. Someone chooses to join the police, with an understanding of what the job represents and entails. If they choose to join the police when the police are widely considered corrupt and looked down upon by society (or at least some parts of it), that's on them.

Anti-discrimination and hate speech laws are about ensuring the people are not mistreated for a fundamental characteristic of who they are. No one has cop DNA.