Megan Thee Stallion’s attorneys are returning to courtroom with a request for stronger restrictions towards Milagro Gramz, arguing {that a} current jury win was not sufficient to cease the continuing on-line harassment they are saying the commentator has directed on the rapper. In a newly submitted 23-page motion, her authorized crew is asking for a everlasting injunction that might stop Gramz from persevering with to publish or talk about Megan in a means they describe as dangerous, whether or not by way of livestreams, social media updates, or different types of digital communication.

The movement states that the necessity for this order turned clear quickly after the jury dominated in Megan’s favor and a gag order was lifted. Instead of easing up, her crew claims Gramz instantly resumed disparaging commentary. One of the examples cited is a December 1st Instagram Live the place Gramz downplayed the decision and advised she would shift her content material to music, labeling it “artistic expression.” Megan’s attorneys say that framing indicators her intention to proceed whereas making an attempt to cover behind First Amendment protections.

They additionally name out remarks Gramz made when viewers referenced the lawsuit’s consequence. In the livestream, Gramz stated she doesn’t “get on the internet and cry,” which the movement describes as belittling Megan’s emotional trauma. The subsequent day, Gramz posted photographs of herself alongside Gayle King on X, a publish Megan’s crew says may fairly be interpreted as referencing the rapper’s previous interview with King, which Gramz used throughout trial to query Megan’s credibility relating to the Tory Lanez taking pictures.

Another incident cited occurred on December fifteenth, when Gramz joined one other blogger’s livestream and allegedly made new accusations, together with claiming witness Amiel Holland-Briggs dedicated perjury and referring to Megan as “the Black Regina George,” language described as defamatory and racially charged. She additionally advised Megan’s supervisor needs to be blamed for emotional misery as a result of he shared screenshots of Gramz’s posts — a tactic the submitting says she masks as “just questions.”

The movement argues that Gramz’s crowdfunding efforts to offset damages present she has confronted little consequence and continues to painting her habits as free speech. According to Megan’s attorneys, the sample displays retaliation for the rapper’s cooperation with legislation enforcement and for surviving a taking pictures tied to somebody near Gramz. They conclude that “all factors weigh in favor” of granting a everlasting injunction.