Deducing this has almost nothing to do with the specific topic of how your speech can be sanctioned, but only how the court systems function.

This isn't one of those situations where it makes sense for me to dig and post tort case law just so people can dissect whichever one I post to either be surprised at how reality works, or find a way to carve an exemption about why it doesn't apply at all. Backing up claims this way is not an effective way to synchronize our realities, and it is sillier to conclude that it is an unfathomable reality simply because I don’t feel the need to don’t carry the responsibility of changing your (or other's) mind in this way.

Your response seems like denial to me, as if you need your social contract to be true.

So, here is a more effective way of deducing what you need to know:

A judge will take libel and slander cases from private persons. Which means the judge didn’t dismiss the claim, and civil cases can result in summary judgements, at the discretion of the judge.

A judge will take criminal defamation cases from the state.

You can face civil or criminal liability in the United States for offending people, making fun of them in ways that fit the criteria of libel, slander or defamation. This means you have to defend yourself if in this circumstance or face disruptions to your way of life and freedom, in the United States.

This isn't an extraordinary claim and I would put the ball in your court to disprove it, because this is just an explanation of how the court system works and has almost nothing to do with whether it damaged your ideals about how speech can create liability.