... to the extent AL or TG attempt to argue that the Court should consider other statements on their Twitter accounts, or any previous tweets by Mr. Woods, the argument is a red herring. First, there is no reason any of Mr. Woods' followers, all of whom were exposed to the defamatory statements, would even bother to investigate the speakers and/or their Twitter sites to determine if they were reliable sources.
So, as far as I can parse that, Woods is claiming that his Twitter followers have learned through experience that Woods uses hyperbole, but those same followers will assume that some random person they've never encountered doesn't use hyperbole, and will further assume that said random person is a reliable source.
Rarely. In a few instances, the courts have upheld compelled speech in the commercial context, where the government shows that the compelled statements convey important truthful information to consumers. For example, warnings on cigarette packs are a form of compelled commercial speech that have sometimes been upheld, and sometimes struck down, depending on whether the government shows there is a rational basis for the warning.
Have courts upheld compelled false speech?
No, and the cases on compelled speech have tended to rely on truth as a minimum requirement. For example, Planned Parenthood challenged a requirement that physicians tell patients seeking abortions of an increased risk of suicidal ideation. The court found that Planned Parenthood did not meet its burden of showing that the disclosure was untruthful, misleading, or not relevant to the patient’s decision to have an abortion.
Re: Why is this complicated? Just give spam control to users
Also: 1) don't completely block the tweet, just have it not show up the the recipient or the recipient's followers, 2) do this quietly, so the sender isn't aware of it thus receives no feedback to use to try to get around the recipient's personalized filters.
Re: Re: drawing the line (in case you're not trolling)
No self defense against women by men? Yeah, bullshit. I haven't watched the video of the incident in question, so I don't know what he did in this particular instance was justified, but as a general principle it's absolutely fine.
This is a secret interpretation of what the government is allowed to do. There hasn't (yet) been any (documented) instances of secret interpretations of laws about what private citizens are prohibited from doing.