I was moved by the article but then I searched and felt mislead by it. The victim engages in what appears to be frequent troll bating, harassment, and defamatio

I was moved by the article but then I searched and felt mislead by it. The victim engages in what appears to be frequent troll bating, harassment, and defamation himself. Producing enough drama that I can see why some people find his reports dubious. When the article talked about him refusing to back down, I thought that was about protecting his livelihood as an author, rather than continuing as a terminally online internet warrior. Being required to cover his opponents costs in court wasn't at all surprising after reading the filings. I'm grateful for the times when I've had good friends remind me that "winning" is getting what you want out of life. You're not losing simply because an opponent got what they wanted too and you're not winning just because they didn't. The world isn't just or fair. Some people get cancer and have to undergo treatment that makes them feel profoundly ill to prevent a painful premature death. Conmen clear people out while the police look for donut shops. Some people troll hard enough online that eventually anything inflammatory they say brings out a swarm of killer bees. Should these things happen? No. But when they do you've got to make the best out of it. Do we say "No I won't take this cancer treatment, it sucks and people shouldn't suffer from cancer-- I won't let the cancer win!". No. Do we say, "I won't stop trusting Microsoft tech support cold calls, scammers shouldn't impersonate them. I won't let the scammers win!". No. It's regrettable that people in a bad situation don't have all the freedoms that everyone deserves, but if your response is unrealistic at some point the harm you suffer become partially your fault too. So please, all those who haven't dug themselves into this pit make a commitment to yourself: If ever you find that your internet drama has escalated to the point where you and your spouse may literally be killed over it, when the men with guns get too twitchy with the trigger on the _30th_ time they visit your home, do whatever you can to make it stop. And if refraining from a righteous internet argument is all that's realistically within your power, fair or not, -- commit to doing that. No one has ever starved because they couldn't dunk the MAGA-tards on twitter for the five hundredth time. Because, sure sometimes the jerks win. Life isn't fair. But I'd prefer to look at NOT BEING DEAD as the real win. Other people who aren't lightning rods with home addresses known to the worst of the worst will carry on the good fight, no doubt. You've got to do what it takes to protect you and yours. But ... wtf is wrong with the local police that by the 10th swatting they haven't managed to stick post-it notes on the dispatcher consoles to tell them to stop sending an armed response to that address? Considering that children and the mentally ill-- people who aren't accountable for their own actions-- are able to engage in swatting, the ultimate responsibility must be on law enforcement to not allow themselves to be used as a tool of harassment. The victim's twitter recently reported that he's now been swatted 27 times. If that's accurate his litigation budget might better have been spent suing the police than trying to dox online critics-- even with a loss they might get the message, online trolls surely never will. :(