content: just read the article. her double standards are stunning.  “Have we not been over the fact that it was the volume, Mr. Murphy [defense's lawyer]? The frequency of Tweets?” she said once. When he asked her to point to one — just one — that had instilled fear in her, she snapped, “That’s not how feelings work, Mr. Murphy. They develop over time.”  When the lawyer suggested she wasn’t fearful, that she’d made fun of Mr. Elliott [the accused] and taunted him, she sighed theatrically and said, “There’s no perfect victim, Mr. Murphy, and no perfect way to respond to being stalked. Sometimes you have to fight back a little bit…. I’m sorry if I wasn’t a perfect victim.” Mr. Murphy then suggested that what Mr. Elliott had been doing was defending himself, and his views, when he was being attacked on Twitter by her and the other complainants. Wasn’t he entitled to do that? “He’s entitled to defend himself to the world, Mr. Murphy; he’s not entitled to do it to me.” “No matter what you say about or to him?” Mr. Murphy asked. “Not to me,” she said.  In other words she is literally stating that she is entitled to say anything to or about him and that is OK but if he does the literal exact same thing to her it is criminally punishable harassment. I could not make this shit up.