Megan Thee Stallion Loses Bid To Shutup Milagro Gramz, Blogger Can Talk About Rapper – At Her Own Risk

Megan Thee Stallion took a loss after a federal judge blocked her attempt to silence critic Milagro Gramz, citing First Amendment protections.

A judge in Miami rejected Megan Thee Stallion’s request for a permanent injunction to shut up blogger Milagro Gramz.

The defeat for Meg came after a big win, after a jury found Gramz liable for emotional distress, and promoting deepfake pornography of the rapper.

According to TMZ, the judge’s 40-page opinion detailed why First Amendment concerns outweighed Megan’s request for additional relief, even when that speech causes real harm.

The jury awarded Megan Thee Stallion $59,000 in damages last year for emotional distress and posting a deepfake p### video of the rapper.

That money represented a major victory. But when Megan’s legal team asked the judge to go further and ban Milagro Gramz from making future statements about her, the court said no.

Judge Cecilia Altonaga found that granting such an injunction would violate the First Amendment by functioning as a “prior restraint” on speech, basically banning someone from saying something before they actually say it.

The judge’s reasoning was straightforward. Milagro Gramz never physically tracked Megan down, showed up at her performances, or directly contacted her.

Those are the hallmarks of actual stalking. The court also noted that Megan already received what the law provides for past harm: money damages. She failed to prove any real, immediate threat moving forward, just the possibility that something could happen again.

Megan argued that Milagro Gramz’s post-verdict conduct showed ongoing harassment, but the judge wasn’t convinced.

Posts about starting a mixtape, responding to social media users, and sharing her perspective in a CBS News interview don’t meet the legal definition of cyberstalking.

The court emphasized that whether a communication causes emotional distress must be narrowly construed and judged by what a reasonable person would experience.

The constitutional issue loomed largest. Even if courts could theoretically issue injunctions against defamatory speech after a trial, the judge said Megan’s proposed restrictions were too broad.

She wanted to ban Milagro Gramz from making any statements about her testimony at Tory Lanez’s trial, her mental state, her alcohol use, and her family.

That’s not narrowly tailored. That’s a blanket prohibition on future speech about specific topics, which courts have consistently rejected as unconstitutional.

Florida law also worked against Megan. State appellate courts have consistently held that injunctions aren’t available to stop someone from uttering insults or falsehoods.

Milagro Gramz’s posts were offensive and vulgar, sure, but offensive speech alone doesn’t justify silencing someone’s future expression.

Judge Altonaga’s decision means Milagro Gramz can continue posting about Megan, though she remains liable for any future statements proven to be defamatory.

Related