How did I miss this?
Sounds fab.

Yeah, I don't think it's to suggest homophobia or anything related to that topic specifically.

Yitzock: You are right, I read the novel decades ago and was very impressed. Not sure if there is a connection to this Robert Ross. 

Liberty: Yes, it is a rough translation of "Reichenbach". However, the fact that it is used as Moriarty's alias is interesting because this is not in ACD canon, just in the episode. 

I think - apart from any symbols of homophobia - there is indeed a parallel between the trials: In both cases first one man (Queensberry/Moriarty) was accused Wilde/Sherlock by but then the cards turned and Wilde respectively Sherlock became the accused themselves. Both were sentenced to two years of hard labour/two years of being alone and in danger and their lives never were the same afterwards. 
 

Just realised that there is one parallel between the Wilde case and TRF that is not in ACD Canon: Canon Holmes was never crucified by the media or hounded by the police. His reputation was never destroyed. Mofftiss deliberately changed this (just as they turned a fight with presumably deadly outcome into a suicide in front of John's eyes). 

In this TRF is much more similar to the Wilde trial than to ACD's "The Final Problem".
  

I suppose what really ruins his reputation is the suggestion that he kidnapped children.   That's not a very comfortable comparism to sex with men, if the parallel is taken further, so I don't think that's intended.   They did need something that would make people despise him (not just something illegal) and also something that John would know wasn't true! 

It's also a nice foreshadowing of the power of the media in HLV, I suppose. 

I know you were emphasising the difference from canon - I was just jumping ahead a bit and trying to continue the parallel with Wilde!  I do think the "what" matters, in that Wilde was prosecuted for something he did commit, but that isn't a crime today, and which we wouldn't disapprove of at all.  Whereas Sherlock was vilified for something which would be deplorable if it was true (kidnapping children, possibly murder, etc. to make him look good as a detective).    Sherlock was rightly vilified, Wilde wasn't.  I think the parallel loses direction there.  What point would they be making? Sherlock kind of brought about his own downfall deliberately (by promoting himself to snare Moriarty - and later, I suppose, it was necessary for a convincing "suicide"), and his exile was planned and voluntary. 

I do remember reading that ACD planned for The Final Problem to be the end of Holmes (although I'm sure I also remembering Moftiss saying, that of course he didn't, because there was no body and he must have left it deliberately open for a possible comeback!).  Which may be one reason why he made him go out heroically rather than with his reputation ruined.  Whereas Moftiss make it clear even within the episode that they are not killing Sherlock off, so they were more free to do what they liked with his reputation, and leave us with a cliffhanger!