Rowan retweetledi
🚨BREAKING: A federal judge has DENIED Megan Thee Stallion’s request for a permanent injunction against blogger Milagro Cooper, meaning Milagro will NOT be legally barred from speaking about Megan moving forward.
This comes after Megan previously won damages at trial, but the court has now drawn a clear line: money damages do not equal control over future speech.
Here’s what the judge ruled and why:
• No permanent injunction granted
The court refused to impose any restrictions on Milagro’s speech, including bans on posting, discussing Megan, or removing content going forward.
• Cyberstalking was NOT proven to the legal standard
Even though the jury found Milagro liable for defamation and related claims, the judge said that does not automatically prove cyberstalking.
The court emphasized that her content could still be viewed as commentary on matters of public concern, which can qualify as having a “legitimate purpose.”
• Megan already received damages
The judge made it clear that Megan has already been compensated through the jury’s award.
Courts do not allow “double recovery,” meaning you typically cannot get both financial compensation and broad restrictions for the same conduct.
• No proof of future harm
A permanent injunction requires proof that harm is ongoing or likely to happen again.
The court found Megan’s claims about future conduct were too speculative and not supported by current evidence.
• Post-trial conduct did not qualify as cyberstalking
The judge reviewed Milagro’s recent interviews and posts and found they did not meet the legal definition of cyberstalking or severe harassment.
• The requested order was too broad
Megan asked for sweeping restrictions, including banning Milagro from discussing her, her testimony, her personal life, and requiring distance restrictions.
The court said these requests were not narrowly tailored and went beyond the scope of the alleged conduct.
• Major First Amendment concerns
This was a key factor.
The judge ruled that Megan’s request amounted to an unconstitutional “prior restraint”—an attempt to block speech before it happens.
Courts strongly protect against this, especially involving public figures and commentary.
This is a major win for Milagro Cooper and a significant ruling reinforcing free speech protections, even in cases involving harsh, offensive, or controversial commentary.
Full document: drive.google.com/file/d/1sGljkG…
English
