A federal judge in Miami has officially rejected Megan Thee Stallion’s request for a permanent injunction aimed at silencing blogger Milagro Gramz. The ruling underscores the high legal threshold required to restrict speech, even when that speech is deemed harmful or offensive.
The legal battle follows a significant victory for the rapper, as a jury previously found Gramz liable for emotional distress and the promotion of deepfake pornography involving the artist. According to reports, the jury awarded Megan $59,000 in damages last year. However, when the rapper’s legal team sought to extend this victory by obtaining a court order to prevent Gramz from making future statements about her, the court declined.
In a 40-page opinion, Judge Cecilia Altonaga explained that granting such an injunction would constitute a “prior restraint” on speech, a move that would violate the First Amendment. The court noted that while the content produced by Gramz was offensive and vulgar, it did not meet the legal criteria for stalking, as there was no evidence of physical tracking or direct, harassing contact.
The judge emphasized that the legal system provides remedies for past harm—such as the monetary damages already awarded—but cannot be used to preemptively ban future commentary. The court further noted that the proposed restrictions were overly broad, as they would have prohibited Gramz from discussing various aspects of the rapper’s life, including her testimony in the Tory Lanez trial and personal matters.
Ultimately, the ruling reinforces that under Florida law and constitutional protections, offensive speech alone is insufficient grounds to silence an individual. While Milagro Gramz remains liable for any future statements that may be proven defamatory, she is not legally barred from speaking about the rapper moving forward.
