I dunno. Not a lawyer, etc.

I would say it's probably relevant that she and Twitch are in California which to my knowledge has not adopted that insane, ironically antisemitic "antisemitism definition."

Also that law was for specific purposes relating to funding by the US gov to people and colleges specifically. Ie if they are ruled antisemitic (a college, etc.) they are disqualified from federal funds. I understand you were asking, not suggesting or whatever, so, I'll just leave it at that. It would depend upon the judge and any appeals that came (writing this from the POV of Frogan, main target here)... assuming she even won. I would say in my understanding of the law, it would be brought up by the defendant, 100%, but if the judge is a state judge and actually being "fair" and following the correct procedures... then they'd be seeking out like "is she specifically saying antisemitic things? Is she holding up known symbols? Like what is the basis for calling this specific incident antisemitic?" On the other hand, she would be arguing she did nothing to lead to that assessment by the defendant. That they knowingly, falsely spread this narrative despite immediately being pushed back on by the involved parties with explanations, that they did not retract the statement and they did all of this with clear, stated, malicious intent to have her livelihood cutoff. (Maybe I should've been a lawyer... nah, kinda hate lawyers)

But, I concede, this all does hinge on people being fair. I think this case is so far beyond the pale, so egregious, that even a hardcore Zionist judge would find that it was defamation if only to preserve their own reputation... such that it matters. But, again, who knows. People have gotten away with far worse and people have been successfully "punished" for far less.