First, I never said anyone has the right to hurt other people. In fact I explicitly said I understood the injunctive relief. Surely if posts on a well-known blog are sufficient to cause such significant damage, then removing the posts and issuing a longstanding correction on the same blog should be sufficient to repair it [0].

Second, the two wrongs are directly related in that one caused the other, as a result of the victim trying to figure out who was responsible and/or delusionally focusing on the wrong person because of the harassment. The point is that the more above-board instance of speech is being legally punished (talking in terms of names and real-world identities), whereas the less above board speech is not (because doing so is up against the limit of anonymous communications).

> How could entirely unsupported speech ever be in good faith?

In this case, it seems due to some kind of delusional thinking that is seeing a connection where one does not exist, or at least cannot be substantiated. But regardless, Techrights seems to earnestly believe Garrett is behind the harassment, as opposed to say knowingly making false statements to damage his reputation.

[0] Though based on Techrights's response posted elsewhere in this thread, I don't have much hope they're going to come around to understanding why there is a problem here.