subjective views, epithets, and rhetorical hyperbole used to express the CAIR Foundation’s deeply-held opinions about the Incident and Herman.

“Context is key here. CAIR Foundation’s role as a staunch advocate for Muslim-Americans signals to readers that these underlined statements are not an assertion of objective fact, but as expressions of subjective belief and opinion from an advocate’s point of view.”CAIR’s Motion to Dismiss – page 32

Furthermore, several of the statements were posted on Twitter, where readers expect “a wide range of casual, emotive, and imprecise speech,” and where character limits necessarily prevent a comprehensive account of events. See Sandals Resorts Int’l Ltd. v. Google, Inc., 86 A.D.3d 32, 43 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011) (noting that “[t]he culture of Internet communications . . . has been characterized as encouraging a ‘freewheeling, anything-goes writing style’” and social media statements are thus given less “credence” by readers) – page 27