fees. The Bankruptcy Court’s refusal to grant the proposed draconian sanction was not an abuse of discretion. V. The Injunction A party is entitled to a permanent injunction if it can establish that it will suffer continuing injury for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Women’s Medical Professional Corp. v. Baird, 438 F.3d 595, 602 (6th Cir.2006). The scope of injunctive relief is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Id. In this country, there is a rich tradition of freedom of speech. E.g., U.S. Const. amend I; New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964); Near v. State of Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 51 S.Ct. 625, 75 L.Ed. 1357 (1931). Accordingly, the courts must tread lightly when enjoining speech. E.g., Near, 283 U.S. at 721, 51 S.Ct. 625 (<HOLDING>). The freedom of speech is not an absolute
holding that injunction of scandalous newspaper was unconstitutional holding unconstitutional injunction barring dissemination of allegedly libelous letter holding that the injunction did not constitute a claim holding that a regulations criteria for determining whether a publication is a newspaper was unconstitutional where it discriminated on the basis of the content of the speech holding that it was reasonably foreseeable to the defendant that the letter he handdelivered to a newspaper in response to an advertisement would be sent by the newspaper to its customer via the us mails