Individuals harmed by weaponized disinformation possess only one avenue for legal recourse: bringing a defamation suit in civil court. Monetary damages are the standard remedy for the defamed, and while sufficient in some cases, plaintiffs may seek to use the legal system to stop the further spread of the very disinformation that harmed them. In theory, a large judgment or settlement should deter the defamer from continuing to spread disinformation. However, reality shows that this is not always the case, as payments of judgments are held up in bankruptcy court, or the defamer continues to spread lies about the plaintiff, potentially requiring renewed litigation. An alternative remedy—a permanent injunction—offers another avenue that would avoid this outcome. Rather than a single verdict, properly tailored post-adjudication injunctive relief in a defamation case would prevent a defamer from continuing to spread the same disinformation about a plaintiff, and if said defamer continues to do so, the plaintiff may file with the court, avoiding the outcome of embarking on an entirely new lawsuit.
This Note discusses post-adjudication permanent injunctions in the context of defamation cases, exploring and evaluating their potential effectiveness in stemming sources of disinformation without stripping the protections for defendants of defamation law. If narrowed to the proven defamatory statements at issue—unprotected speech—a permanent injunction would not offend protected future speech and would serve as another option available to plaintiffs to deter disinformation, contributing to the larger fight against it.