It's pretty standard to argue that statements made were opinions, not literal facts in some context. It's also pretty standard for propagandists to twist that into someone admitting that they're some kind of liar.
The author of this piece, David Folkenflik, is exploiting that for clickbait. This is a dishonest tactic, because a lot of things like this are normally considered "rhetorical hyperbole" and the case is simply not exceptional. This suit was simply laughed out of court and they'd rather not report on that so they found another slant.
Normal legal defense arguments made in this ruling are already being exploited for propaganda by the likes of the NPR:
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye
It's pretty standard to argue that statements made were opinions, not literal facts in some context. It's also pretty standard for propagandists to twist that into someone admitting that they're some kind of liar.
The author of this piece, David Folkenflik, is exploiting that for clickbait. This is a dishonest tactic, because a lot of things like this are normally considered "rhetorical hyperbole" and the case is simply not exceptional. This suit was simply laughed out of court and they'd rather not report on that so they found another slant.
Author: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Folkenflik