IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF RIDGEWAY
notsfeelings,
Plaintiff,
v.
Matrix_oc,
Defendant.
___________________________/
CIVIL DIVISION
CASE NO.: 01-2025-CV-003569
JUDGE: HON. ENFORCEMENTBEYOND
ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
THIS MATTER came before the Court by Plaintiff notsfeelings’petition for injunctive
relief. Plaintiff filed a Civil Complaint against Defendant on the 22nd of January 2025. Due to
the legal requirement pertaining to this type of petition, the defendant was requested to provide a
reply outlining their arguments and stance. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s petition for
injunctive relief is GRANTED, for the reasons explained therein.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed a petition for injunctive relief due to the surrounding matter, which is the
election for the offices of Governor and Lieutenant Governor of the State of Ridgeway, being
extremely time sensitive. The plaintiff requests that the defendant “(...) take down the posted
material identified in the complaint as a misappropriation of the name or likeness of the
plaintiff.”.
The defendant allegedly posted a photograph that “has been edited to superimpose one of
the defendant’s campaign shirts onto the torso and arms of the plaintiff” in channels of the State
of Ridgeway discord server. The campaign shirt in question supposedly reads: “MATRIX 2025”
and “ALL THE WAY”, written above and below a photograph of the defendant’s face,
respectively.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Simply put, both sides have cited Winter. See Winter v. Natural Resources Defense
Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008). This case has provided a four-pronged test to determine
whether preliminary injunction is a proper remedy. The prongs are thus:
I. Whether the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits,
II. whether the plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable harm without the injunction,
III. whether the balance of equities and hardships is in the plaintiff's favor and
IV. whether an injunction is in the public interest.
PLAINTIFF’S LIKELINESS TO SUCCEED ON MERITS
First, the court examines the plaintiff’s likelihood to succeed on the merits of the case.
For this, both sides were able to present their arguments. The plaintiff states that “the facts allege
that a screenshot of the plaintiff was taken, including his name and likeness, and then edited to
depict the plaintiff’s endorsement of the defendant, before being posted again. (...) This
screenshot places the plaintiff in the public eye, but in a false light, by representing that an
endorsement has been made when that is not the case“.
The defendant states that “the speech pertains to public concern and is therefore entitled
to first amendment protection”. In most cases, there indeed exists a robust right to protect the
freedom of speech and expression, as to prevent censorship. There are restrictions that may be
placed upon it, including but not limited to:
- Time, Place and Manner Restrictions
- True Threats
- Speech that violates intellectual property laws
- Libel and slander
Libel is defined as “making of false statements about another person or business”. The
court is inclined to agree that, due to the nature of the relationship between the parties (both are
running for office in an adversarial manner), the evidence and facts can prove the defendant
made a claim which is able to be construed as untrue.
PLAINTIFF’S LIKELINESS TO SUFFER IRREPARABLE HARM
The court then looks at the likelihood of the defendant suffering irreparable harm. The
plaintiff states here that “The public perception of political candidates is a major aspect of their
electability. (...) This damage is irreparable because of the very public nature of the post which
was made.” The defendant argues that irreparable harm cannot be demonstrated, that said harm is
“speculative” and that it “does not justify enjoining free speech”.
The court disagrees with the defendant in that irreparable harm cannot be demonstrated.
Public opinion in elections is a matter of perception. A running candidate being depicted as a
supporter of their adversary can be construed as a way to impact public opinion. It is also
publicly available for all citizens to see, rather than a select group of people. This means it can
directly impact voting behaviour to sway votes to the defendant's side.
The court also disagrees with the notion that it does not justify enjoining free speech.
Statements, be it photographic, textual or otherwise, that are known to be untrue and aim to alter
public perception of a person in a negative way can be restricted, in this case to keep elections
fair and neutral.
BALANCE OF EQUITIES AND HARDSHIPS IN PLAINTIFF’S FAVOR
Next, the court looks at how the equities and hardships balance out. This means that any
equities and hardships must show that the plaintiff has reason to request this sort of relief. The
plaintiff argues that “significant hardship is experienced by the plaintiff without this injunction
and there is very little hardship experienced by the defendant by compelling their compliance”.
The court agrees with this notion, the defendant has access to channels in their capacity
as current Governor that the plaintiff does not have access to, potentially allowing this to
continue without a remedy of their own. The defendant states that “enjoining the speech would
cause significant harm to public debate” and that this “outweighs any alleged harm to the
plaintiff”. The court disagrees based on the above mentioned reasoning, as well as the
importance of accurate and factually correct information.
IS INJUNCTION IN PUBLIC INTEREST
Finally, the court must determine whether an injunction is in the public’s interest. This
prong is more important than ever, considering this touches the very foundation of our society.
Plaintiff states that “The public interest is served by free and fair elections (...) The public
expects politicians to act in a way which is honest, truthful, and best represents the reality of
what they believe. Pure falsehoods contradict the public interest, and instead cause harm to the
public’s level of information regarding political matters”.
The defendant argues that the public interest is served in denying the injunction and that
free speech is the cornerstone of a democratic society, which must be vigorously protected.
The court agrees that the freedom of speech is a right which must be vigorously
protected. However, it must also not be seen as a get-out-of-jail-free card. In this particular
manner, the general public has a large interest in receiving honest, truthful information that they
can use to make an informed and thought-out decision.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court holds that the plaintiff's petition for injunctive relief is
GRANTED.
SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED in chambers in Milton, Ridgeway
County, Ridgeway, this 25th day of January, 2025.
/s/ bommes
BOMMES
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies to: Plaintiff / Defendant
