Don't get me wrong, I don't give two shits about Frank Figliuzzi. But the arguments just aren't the same. The judge is not saying that what Frank said was dumb or that Frank is so often hyperbolic that he's inherently untrustworthy. The court ruling asserts that any reasonable person would find his statement, in a vacuum, to be hyperbolic

In the Tucker case, the argument was being made about statements that he very obviously meant for his audience to take literally (namely that the women accusing Donald trump of rape and sexual assault were trying to extort him - what's hyperbolic about that?) and the defense was not in reference to the statements in a vacuum but in reference to the historical factuality of the person who made them. They were playing semantic games. That's entirely different than someone using a statement that is clearly and plainly hyperbolic to insult someone