A judge did not take Donald Trump’s tweets seriously — which saved him from a lawsuit.

On Monday,Singapore a libel case against Trump was dumped by a New York judge, who claimed because the president-elect uses “simplistic insults” like “wacko” and “loser” on Twitter, his “hyperbolic” comments just show his opinions and aren't based in truth or fact.

SEE ALSO: Meryl Streep’s Globes speech was beautiful, heartfelt and played right into Donald Trump’s hands

The lawsuit comes after Cheryl Jacobus, a political strategist, was on the receiving end of some Twitter insults thrown around by President-elect Donald Trump during his campaign.

Jacobus sued Trump for libel, claiming his tweets and his followers' responses damaged her reputation and professional opportunities.

Two of Trump's tweets listed in the suit were:

In the suit, Jacobus claims the tweets prompted online hate from Trump's followers, which included "demeaning, sometimes sexually charged, comments and graphics, including insults aimed at her professional conduct" and her experience and qualifications. Another tweet was an image of a “grossly disfigured face, and a depiction of (Jacobus) in a gas chamber with Trump standing nearby ready to push a button marked 'Gas.'"

Mashable Light Speed Want more out-of-this world tech, space and science stories? Sign up for Mashable's weekly Light Speed newsletter. By clicking Sign Me Up, you confirm you are 16+ and agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Thanks for signing up!

Trump's tweets came after Jacobus said she was asked to interview for a campaign communications director position in May 2015 before Trump announced his candidacy. She said she didn't pursue the job because she didn't want to work for former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski.

The Hollywood Reporterposted the full decision to dismiss the case Monday after an October hearing in which Trump's lawyer, Lawrence Rosen, argued that "perception is reality."

According to the American Bar Association Journal,Judge Barbara Jaffe considered her ruling in "the spirit of the First Amendment" and considered Trump's statements "imprecise and hyperbolic political dispute cumschoolyard squabble."

She also said because Trump's comments were on Twitter, they should not be taken seriously.

"His tweets about his critics, necessarily restricted to 140 characters or less, are rife with vague and simplistic insults such as 'loser' or 'total loser' or 'totally biased loser,' 'dummy' or 'dope' or 'dumb,' 'zero/no credibility,' 'crazy' or 'wacko' and 'disaster,' all deflecting serious consideration," Jaffe wrote.

"His tweets ... are rife with vague and simplistic insults."

Ultimately, she concluded his "intemperate tweets" are "clearly intended to belittle and demean" the plaintiff.

She went on to explain how the quick Twitter hits aren't based in truth. "Indeed, to some, truth itself has been lost in the cacophony of online and Twitter verbiage to such a degree that it seems to roll of the national consciousness like water off a duck's back."

Looks like Trump can safely keep tweeting insults.

Featured Video For You
New smart ball is a learning tool specially designed for autistic children

Topics Social Media Donald Trump