“The subject Tweet makes no accusation of acts of a sexual nature. There is no accusation of specific criminal conduct. The context is that the subject Tweet is a “mock” of prior fake stories and in response (in kind) to posts made over the three preceding days by the Def Noodles character, in which it repeatedly used “allegedly” to frame the comments about Keem” (Motion, 05.08.2022).
That Dennis Feitosa aka Def Noodles and Daniel M. Keem aka Keemstar has gone through a lot online isn’t anything new at this point. It was on the 19th May 2022 that Def Noodles filed his motion to sue and go after Keemstar for damages over a tweet from 2021. Now after all the recent controversy. The motion from the attorney of Keemstar is out and it has aspects, which digs much deeper than what Def Noodles had in first piece of litigation. Certainly, this is showing things that Def Noodles don’t want to undress in the Courts, but because of the Court case he has to address.
The motion itself shows how they both as YouTubers and Social Media influencers has operated on Twitter. It is really shattering seeing how the document shows the hypocrisy of Def Noodles in comparison to the Tweet that is the reason for this lawsuit. Because, he shows that plenty of Tweets from Def Noodles are much more direct and worse with the content. That is the obvious case here.
One of the best part of the Motion was this one:
“Here, the alleged defamatory statement, on its face and as pleaded in the complaint, is not “of and concerning” plaintiff Dennis Feitosa, as a matter of fact or law. Indeed, the subject Tweet does not mention him at all. Rather, the subject Tweet is of and concerning a fictitious internet cat character, “Def Noodles,” which exists solely as a comedic instrument for generating jokes and satirical commentary. (Smith Decl., Exs. 1 and 2, and 12-15). “Def Noodles” is not synonymous with Feitosa, as Feitosa has repeatedly admitted, disclaimed, and emphasized. Def Noodles is a separate, outlandish, comedic character developed to satirically criticize, mock, and otherwise attack other social media personalities –and to be mocked and attacked in response. In his own description of this created character, Plaintiff has written that Def Noodles is “a satirical take in Internet news commentary hosted by a cat in a Minecraft house.” (Motion, 05.08.2022).
This here is so detrimental to the case, as it goes to the aspect of the character versus the person. That’s really poignant point, which is far beyond the reasoning in the original lawsuit from Def Noodles.
The best counter argument towards Def Noodles and damages is using his own Twitter history against Keemstar: “The statement parrots the cautionary language “allegedly” – which is a known signature disclaimer of Def Noodles and how the Def Noodles character couched each of its demeaning tweets about Keem in the three consecutive days (May 18th, May 19th, and May 20th) immediately preceding the May 21st responsive subject Tweet.4 The subject Tweet also mimics the “reached out for comment” line that the Def Noodles character has admitted to using falsely in the past. (Smith Decl., Ex. 2). The reference to “Big YouTuber Source” further highlights that Keem is poking fun, in kind, at the Def Noodles character and consistent with the joking/mocking environment in which they are operating – not stating serious facts” (Motion, 05.08.2022).
Here the arguments are showing that the comedian are struggling to comprehend and understand the satirical aspects of it. What is striking in the counter motion is showing how Def Noodles went after Keemstar on Twitter. That is clearly how he operates and does his work. We have seen that with other content creators how Def Noodles has gone after Papa Gut lately. Keemstar’s lawyers has really done him a service and showing how Def Noodles has acting in the same sphere.
The motion is clearly outlining why this isn’t libel or defamation, but instead play online between two content creators. Again, showing that Def Noodles cannot comprehend jokes made by others.
One vital part of which the attorney of Def Noodles failed to do or produce facts was the damages done by the Tweet in question. Which is sort of foolish in consideration of everything he has produced against others and proved in the court document by Keemstar’s attorney’s.
The part of defamation and the burden of loss or consequences to the Tweet. The reason why Keemstar should pay any damages to the one suing. That seems to beyond reach and explained in fine print: “Indeed, Feitosa does not allege any loss of income or other economic harm, nor does he allege a loss of YouTube subscribers or social media followers. Accordingly, this Court can dismiss the Complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See id. (“[I]in the event the complaint does not allege, on its face, facts plausibly suggesting that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum, the court need not presume that the general allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum constitutes a good faith representation of the actual amount in controversy.”)” (Motion, 05.08.2022).
This I discussed in the piece “The Def Noodles Lawsuit is here… and the “comedian” cannot take a joke…”. As Libel and Defamation cases needs proof of loss of revenue or credibility. In such a way that the other party can sue or ask for damages. This just shows how Def Noodles or Dennis failed in this instance. Because, he has no proof of that or any evidence to prove it. If he had… he should have proven it. This is the most powerful statement in the whole legal drama.
The defence of Keemstar is really solid and shows both characters, their work and how they both as acted online. It wasn’t a one-time thing and certainly Def Noodles needs to come with proper evidence to let this one fly. Because, he has a mountain climb and prove that he should “win” and get the damages. Especially, when he tweeted similar things ahead of the Tweet that caused the lawsuit. Just proving how he wants one law for him and another for others. Which isn’t striking and the best part of all.
The defence of Keemstar is using the Def Noodles “comedian” and “satirical” character against him. In such a way… that he now has to either switch up or say it all is “serious”. Which will counter the “lore” of Def Noodles.
Time will tell, but this case isn’t over yet, but as Motion goes. This was a good one. Peace.