Restraining order against a r/scienceontrial moderator is dissolved

In June 2024 Sarrita Adams filed an action in the Superior Court of California in San Francisco against Amy Gulley, a Pennsylvania-resident Reddit moderator. Adams, who had publicly questioned aspects of the evidence in the high-profile UK conviction of nurse Lucy Letby, alleged that Gulley had harassed and stalked her through the subreddit r/scienceontrial and had improperly impersonated her company. Adams's filing sought protective relief framing the moderator's conduct as a harassment campaign; these were Adams's allegations rather than proven facts.

Gulley was represented by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a civil-liberties organisation that frequently litigates free-speech matters. Early in the case, a temporary restraining order (TRO) was issued on an ex parte basis — that is, without Gulley present — that barred Gulley's posts. According to FIRE and to legal commentary published on the Volokh Conspiracy at Reason, that order was extended for an unusually long period, on the order of 115 days, without a hearing, effectively suppressing the moderator's speech about Adams during that time.

The case turned on jurisdiction and on free-speech protections. On 30 September 2024 the court granted Gulley's motion to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction over the out-of-state moderator, and in doing so dissolved the restraining order. Commentary on the ruling noted that the court regarded the anti-SLAPP arguments — invoking statutes designed to deter litigation aimed at silencing protected speech — as compelling, even though the case was resolved on jurisdictional grounds.

The episode illustrates several recurring themes. It shows how restraining-order procedures can be used, at least temporarily, to remove critical online speech before the target has a chance to respond, raising free-speech concerns when the underlying conduct is contested commentary on a matter of public interest. It also highlights the role of subreddit moderators as identifiable parties who can be drawn into litigation over what they and their communities publish.

For an archive of Reddit controversies, the case documents a contemporary clash between a public-interest critic, a Reddit moderator and community, and the courts, in which the speech ultimately prevailed once the matter was adjudicated rather than handled ex parte. It should be described with care: Adams's harassment and impersonation allegations were her claims and were not established, and the outcome — a quashed order — reflected a jurisdictional and free-speech ruling in the moderator's favour rather than any finding about the truth of either side's broader assertions.