[FredZarguna]

Well, since you're a stickler for the the law "as written," maybe you should stop pretending it's about Free Speech, because the law "as written" says this:

"IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER RIGHT OF ACTION AND ANY OTHER REMEDY PROVIDED BY LAW, A VICTIM OF A PERSONAL INJURY CRIME MAY BRING A CIVIL ACTION AGAINST AN OFFENDER IN ANY COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION TO OBTAIN INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF, INCLUDING REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES AND OTHER COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE LITIGATION, FOR CONDUCT WHICH PERPETUATES THE CONTINUING EFFECT OF THE CRIME ON THE VICTIM."

Which is about re-victimizing conduct, and not about speech.

What part about keeping criminals from continuing to profit from their crimes, or victimizing their victims do you object to?

[Lurking Libertarian]

Which is about re-victimizing conduct, and not about speech. What part about keeping criminals from continuing to profit from their crimes, or victimizing their victims do you object to?

I've got nothing against keeping criminals from profiting from their crime, or re-injuring their victims. But an injunction against speaking does neither of those things. I'm sure there are many valid applications of this law, but an injunction against pure speech isn't one of them.