We disagree. To be sure, persons viewing the video depositions on the Internet reacted with a variety of unflattering remarks and vague threats. However, such negative comments do not constitute the “abuse” contemplated by rule 1.610(b) sufficient to excuse the requirement of posting a bond. Moreover, the motion for temporary injunction asserts the violation of the Appellees’ privacy rights, including the disclosure of their identities as a basis for imposing the injunction. The order granting the injunction adopted the arguments in the motion in support of its issuance, and thus the injunction was not issued “solely” to prevent physical injury or abuse as required by rule 1.160(b). See United Farm Workers of Am., AFL-CIO v. Quincy Corp., 681 So.2d 773, 777 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (<HOLDING>). The Appellees also argue that no bond was
holding temporary restraining order void for lack of requirement of separate bond holding that the failure of the applicant to file a bond before the issuance of the temporary injunction renders the injunction void ab initio holding it was error for the court to issue a permanent injunction at a hearing to show cause why a temporary restraining order should not be continued via a preliminary injunction holding temporary restraining order void because court waived bond holding that where the temporary injunction prohibited actions broader than those required solely to prevent physical injury waiver of the bond requirement was error