How is it "no different" from that case? The guy was invited on, and faced a choice, of whether to stick with his principles or to play the role Newsmax assigned him (and thus be implicated in their irresponsible behaviour). He chose the former, and took the opportunity to challenge the Newsmax guy about a specific, factual, issue around Newsmax's own behaviour.
The presenter says they were 'happy to discuss it another time' but can you point to any examples where Newsmax _has_ broadcast discussions where critics like David Litt get to challenge Newmax's own behaviour and consequent legal troubles?
In what way is that 'no different' to someonesmind failing to read an article they linked to, posting a pointless rant about it, and not engaging with any of the responses? It's completely different.
I don't believe someonesmind is a troll either, strictly-speaking, because I think he believes what he posts and is every bit as invested in the topics as those on the other side. Both he and Mr Litt are expressing what they believe, so neither is truly "trolling" (i.e. being contrarian purely to wind people up for the fun of it).
Someonesmind gets labelled a troll because he too often fails to engage rationally with the responses he gets. But that's not the same thing as provoking people purely for the sake of it (usually about something the troll doesn't in reality care about either way).
Facebook
Twitter