My guess, having not read the opinion, is that they were quoting somebody. That could be the original tweet, someone's description of it, or Twitter's lawyers. I know when I've written long things where I'm quoting someone in that way, writing so-called every time gets boring and I sometimes forget to do it. I might be wrong, though, and it's the judge's own description of the goals they ascribe to the person involved. Their point remains the same however they choose to express it.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
