Key points
- Her team filed a 23 page motion in federal court. They ask for a permanent injunction to stop online attacks.
- The filing names a December 1 Instagram Live appearance. Lawyers say Gramz framed speech as artistic expression to dodge limits.
- The motion cites mocked emotional distress and ongoing harm. A judge could bar posts videos and live commentary online.
Megan Thee Stallion filed a 23 page federal motion seeking a court order. Her lawyers say the filing aims to stop ongoing online attacks. The motion asks the judge for broad and lasting protection.
The legal move follows a jury finding that held Gramz liable in the defamation case. That earlier jury award was later reduced by a judge in related rulings. Read our Megan Thee Stallion case coverage for more on the trial.
What the filing says
Attorneys say Gramz resumed targeted posts after a gag order lift. The complaint points to a December first Instagram Live appearance. Legal papers say Gramz framed comments as music or art.
Megan’s lawyers say the livestream downplayed the jury verdict and hinted at more commentary. Court papers say the posts and videos mocked Megan’s distress and caused harm. The filing links the conduct to the earlier deepfake and related posts.
The motion asks the judge to bar both written and spoken targeting online. It seeks limits on posts videos livestreams and podcasts that mention Megan. Lawyers argue money awards did not stop that harm.
Gramz denies wrongdoing and has defended a right to discuss public news. Her lawyer says the comments fall within protected expression and art. Courts must weigh harms shown against free speech protections.
Potential court order and scope
The filing lists specific limits the court could impose in an order. Those limits would bar text posts videos and live audio about Megan. The request asks the judge to apply the terms across all major platforms.
ValidUpdates has full reporting on the reduced damages ruling coverage for background on the award. Legal observers say the earlier award did not end the hostile posts. Megan’s team argues only a court order can fully protect her.
Civil limits like these face tight legal tests in federal court. Judges weigh whether speech causes clear harm or a real risk. A judge may craft narrow rules tied to proof of harm.
Megan’s filing says Gramz mocked pain and shared altered clips that worsened mental strain. The complaint adds claims that the conduct led to real health effects. Court records also reference prior orders and a longer post history.
Gramz’s lawyer says clients can discuss public news and culture freely. That lawyer contends the speech sits inside protected expression and art. Courts will weigh rights against the harm shown in records.
A judge will set hearings to hear witness testimony and legal briefs. Both sides will present evidence about harm intent and reach. The timeline now depends on court scheduling and judge orders.
If the court grants broad relief Gramz would face limits on many posts. That result could narrow the blogger’s public content going forward. Legal watchers warn about setting sweeping speech precedents.
ValidUpdates has a timeline of the trial and related rulings. Read our defamation lawsuit verdict coverage for the court details. The judge has not yet decided on the permanent injunction.
A ruling could reshape how online hosts cover public figures. Advocates call for clear rules to limit online harm and protect victims. The court is expected to issue a decision in the weeks ahead.
Megan’s legal team says the move aims to stop relentless trolling and harm. They argue that past awards failed to calm the online attacks. Court records and upcoming hearings will show more facts and witness claims.
The case highlights the ongoing tension between free speech and safety online. Both sides now prepare for possible oral arguments and rulings. ValidUpdates will follow the hearing schedule and update readers as the story develops.
