Why did Patty Valentine sue Bob Dylan? Defense attorney in Megan Thee Stallion's defamation suit against Milagro Gramz cites songwriter's legal past

On October 30, 2024, Megan Jovon Ruth Pete, known professionally as Megan Thee Stallion, filed a defamation lawsuit against blogger Milagro Gramz. In response, Gramz's defense invoked a similar lawsuit that Patricia 'Patty' Valentine filed against Bob Dylan in 1979, All Hip Hop reported.

Patty Valentine was an eyewitness in the Rubin Carter murder case. Carter, who was a middleweight boxing contender at the time, had been identified by Valentine to have murdered two people in a New Jersey bar in 1966. A decade later, Carter was found guilty and charged with a prison sentence because of Patty Valentine's testimony.

In 1976, Patty Valentine filed a defamation lawsuit against Bob Dylan for using her name in his 1975 song, Hurricane. According to Valentine, the song was widely played live and on the radio, destroying her anonymity and exposing her past.

On his part, Bob Dylan had a different opinion of the murder case. Dylan said the song was written to help with what he thought was wrong. Per Rolling Stones, the singer added:

"The purpose was to bring justice to a man we felt was falsely tried."

---

Megan Thee Stallion's lawsuit stifles free speech, said the defense attorney

As per an All Hip Hop exclusive on December 25, Milagro Gramz's defense attorney drew parallels to the decades-old Patty Valentine lawsuit against Bob Dylan and said:

“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."

Ultimately, Valentine's lawsuit was dismissed in court to emphasize that public figures must endure robust criticism in matters of public interest.

Citing the court's decision in the 1970s, Milagro's attorney argued that their client's social media commentary, like Bob Dylan's song, addresses a public trial of significant societal relevance and is, therefore, seen as constitutionally protected speech.

"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," the attorney added.

Gramz's legal team also emphasized that Megan Thee Stallion's defamation claim currently hinges on statements taken out of context. They said the rapper has no proof of "actual malice" behind the blogger's actions.

Gramz's legal team said Milagro has neither knowingly spread falsehoods about Megan nor acted with reckless disregard for the truth.

Megan Thee Stallion's lawsuit against Milagro Gramz revolves around the blogger's social media posts in which she questioned her credibility as a witness in the Tory Lanez case and suggested inconsistencies in her testimony during the trial. Gramz also referred to the Sweetest Pie rapper as a "drunk" in one of her posts.

Countering the lawsuit, Milagro's attorney called these remarks rhetoric hyperbole — fully protected under the First Amendment — pointing towards the lyrics of Megan's 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/ Sh*t, 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."

---

Per Digital Music News, Gramz's legal team has moved to dismiss Megan Thee Stallion’s suit.