If Megan Thee Stallion’s legal strategy had prevailed in the 1970s, Bob Dylan’s “Hurricane”—the anthem that questioned witness credibility and highlighted systemic injustice in Rubin Carter’s case—might have been silenced in a courtroom.
Her lawyers have invoked a lawsuit against Bob Dylan to fight the rap star’s attempt to sue and quiet her critic, blogger Milagro Gramz.
Megan Thee Stallion sued Gramz for defamation, claiming the blogger’s social media posts during Tory Lanez’s trial for shooting the rapper defamed her and caused emotional distress.
Gramz’s defense, however, contends that Megan’s lawsuit attempts to stifle free speech and suppress critical commentary on a high-profile public trial.
“Rather than rebut the commentary or debate the issues raised by [Gramz’] comments so people can make up their own minds, [Megan Thee Stallion] has succumbed to the current trend of using the legal system in an attempt to cancel those opinions she disagrees with,” reads Gramz’s latest attempt to have the lawsuit thrown out of court.
The lawsuit revolves around social media posts where Gramz questioned Megan’s credibility as a witness, referred to her as a “drunk,” and suggested inconsistencies in her testimony during Lanez’s trial, where he was convicted of shooting Megan in the foot.
Megan Thee Stallion argues these statements are defamatory and harmful. Gramz’s attorneys counter that the remarks are opinions and rhetorical hyperbole, fully protected under the First Amendment – pointing to her own lyrics from her song “Cobra.”
At night, I’m sittin’ in a dark room thinkin/Probably why I always end up drinkin’/Yes, I’m very depressed/How can somebody so blessed wanna slit they wrist/S###, I’d probably bleed out some Pinot/When they find me, I’m in Valentino/ayy; He pourin’ me shots, thinkin’ it’s lit/Hah, little did he know.
Drawing a direct parallel to Dylan’s “Hurricane,” Gramz’s defense leans on the precedent set when Patty Valentine sued Dylan for defamation, claiming his song falsely implicated her in a conspiracy against Rubin “Hurricane” Carter.
“Taking Ms. Pete’s logic in bringing this case to its ultimate conclusion, given that a jury convicted Carter, any individual who suggested something to the contrary or who criticized the credibility of the state’s
witnesses in that trial should be guilty of defamation. Patty Valentine, who was mentioned by name
in the Dylan song, thought as Ms. Pete did and sued for defamation, claiming the song implied that
she was involved in the conspiracy against Carter,” explained Gramz’ lawyer Michael Pancier.
The courts dismissed Valentine’s claim, emphasizing that public figures must endure robust criticism in matters of public interest.
Milagro Gramz’s attorneys argue that her social media commentary, much like Dylan’s lyrics, is constitutionally protected speech addressing a public trial of significant societal relevance.
Public figures like Megan Thee Stallion face a high burden of proof, needing to show “actual malice”—that Milagro Gramz knowingly spread falsehoods or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
Gramz’s legal team asserts that Megan has not met this standard, arguing that her claims hinge on taking statements out of context.
The case raises critical questions about how defamation laws apply in a world where social media serves as the new public square.
Megan Thee Stallion’s defamation lawsuit against blogger Milagro Gramz sparks a free speech debate reminiscent of the controversy surrounding Bob Dylan’s “Hurricane” and Rubin Carter’s fight for justice.
