BREAKING: Judge Bars DDG and Halle Bailey From Posting About Each Other or Their Child
In a dramatic courtroom decision on August 21, 2025, a Los Angeles judge has extended a social media gag order in the ongoing custody dispute of rapper DDG (Darryl Dwayne Granberry Jr.) and actress-singer Halle Bailey. Previously directed solely at DDG, the restriction now applies to both parents, preventing them from posting about each other or their child online. Judge Angela Davis issued the ruling amid escalating tensions and a session that saw the courtroom atmosphere crescendo—at one point, DDG’s mother was asked to leave.
What the Order Entails
- Social Media Silence: Neither DDG nor Halle Bailey may post about each other or their son, Halo, on any platform, including YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, X, or Twitch. The extension of the gag order reflects judges’ concern about public exposure fueling conflict and fan harassmen.
- Supervised Visitation: DDG is allowed to see his son—but only under supervision—until the next court hearing scheduled for October 15, 2025.
- Next Hearing: Both parties are expected back in court in mid-October for reassessment of digital restrictions and custody arrangements.
A Broader Picture: From Abuse Allegations to Legal Constraints
Events Leading Up to the Ruling
In May 2025, Halle Bailey obtained a temporary restraining order against DDG, detailing disturbing incidents of verbal, physical, and emotional abuse. In court filings, she described a violent confrontation in January when a custody exchange allegedly turned physical—DDG allegedly pulled her hair and slammed her face against a steering wheel, chipping her tooth and leaving bruises. She also reported that DDG damaged her Ring doorbell, seized her phone, and subjected her to online harassment via his followers.
Following her allegations, Halle was granted temporary sole physical and legal custody of their son, Halo. The restraining order required DDG to remain at least 100 yards away from both mother and child, while granting only supervised weekly visits—capped at six hours within Los Angeles County—and prohibited him from obtaining travel documents for the child without her consent.
In June 2025, DDG’s request to bar Halle from traveling abroad with Halo was denied. The court did not grant his emergency motion alleging emotional risk, nor did it grant his restraining order against her.
Public Posts and Parenting in the Spotlight
Throughout the legal battle, DDG’s online presence remained prominent. Halle’s filing alleged that he livestreamed disputes and prompted a “fan frenzy” with phrases like #freehalo, intensifying her fears for both her and Halo’s safety. These developments paved the way for the judge’s now-bilateral social media gag order.
Implications of the Court’s Latest Order
1. Curbing Public Drama
The judge’s decision to prohibit both parties from online posts aims to de-escalate the public spectacle. Social media, in this case, appears to have become a battleground—jeopardizing privacy, inflaming fans, and potentially influencing judicial perceptions.
2. Prioritizing Child’s Welfare
With DDG’s visits now supervised and strictly limited, the court is signaling that Halo’s safety and emotional stability are the top priorities. Supervision ensures that interactions occur in a controlled, neutral setting, shielding the child from potential parental conflict.
3. Legal Strategy and Public Image
Public posts can sway opinion, attract attention, and even put pressure on legal proceedings. This gag order prevents either parent from shaping the narrative outside the confines of the courtroom—and enforces that custody matters remain private and adjudicated by law.
4. What’s Next
The October 15 hearing will be pivotal. The court will evaluate whether Halle’s allegations hold—or need further evidence—and whether DDG can demonstrate a safe, responsible path to broader visitation or shared custody. Both digital silence and visitation structure will likely be reexamined.
Conclusion
In a notable escalation of their custody battle, a judge has mandated that neither DDG nor Halle Bailey may post about each other or their child online—an order reflective of mounting concern over public exposure. Meanwhile, DDG’s visitation remains supervised, and the case returns to court October 15, 2025, to reconsider digital boundaries and the framework of co-parenting.
This ruling underscores the legal system’s focus on protecting a child’s wellbeing in custody disputes, especially where social media—with immense reach and emotional impact—is involved.
Let me know if you’d like to explore more angles—whether a look at legal precedent, public reactions, or background on the celebrities involved.
Leave a Reply