Danger, Will Robbins. I have zero expertise; I'm an annoying nerd like most of the rest of us. I just read lots of law blogs. :)

The post touches on this:

In determining whether the audience is likely to interpret a statement as one of fact or one of opinion or hyperbole, courts consider a viewpoint of an audience familiar with the speaker, the forum, and the circumstances.

The interesting thing here --- and this is useful for HN, which sometimes has very weird ideas of what constitutes defamation --- is that opinions can't be defamatory. You need to be able to trace a defamation claim back to a damaging revelation of a false fact. Here, the root of the damaging claim is a Tarot reading, which is what makes this case spicy.