Adams v. Gulley: Reddit moderator ordered to remove posts, stop criticizing scientist who questioned Lucy Letby murder evidence

Sarrita Adams, claiming to hold a University of Cambridge Ph.D. in Biochemistry, attracted a worldwide media “frenzy” after she tried to intervene in a high-profile murder trial, arguing that the scientific evidence was flawed. But when people doubted her claimed expertise, Adams used California’s courts as a cudgel to silence her critics, obtaining a restraining order silencing one critic — Amy Gulley, a Reddit moderator in Pennsylvania — for 115 days.

In August 2023, a British court convicted nurse Lucy Letby of murdering seven children and attempting to murder six more. The trial garnered international media attention. When Sarrita Adams — a British expat living in California — questioned the scientific evidence behind the conviction. Claiming to hold a Ph.D. from the University of Cambridge, Adams set up a website questioning the evidence, sought to submit a friend-of-the-court brief to the British court, and began fundraising to “aid in the upcoming appeal for Lucy Letby” — even starting a for-profit company, “Science on Trial, Inc.”

British media outlets and internet users questioned the credibility of Adams’s claimed credentials and expertise. Some pointed out a California appellate court opinion stating that Adams had not completed her Ph.D. as of November 2017 and questioned Adams’ fundraising efforts. Amy Gulley, a Pennsylvania resident, started a subreddit — r/scienceontrial — critical of Adams and her company, and criticized them on X (formerly Twitter).

In June 2024, Adams sued Gulley in California — a state Gulley had never even visited, three time zones away from her home on the east coast. Adams alleged that Gulley was “harassing” and “stalking” Adams, and “impersonating” Science on Trial, Inc., by using its name on a subreddit. Central to Adams’s claims was her allegation that Gulley “lied about [Adams’] educational qualifications . . . from the University of Cambridge[.]” 

Adams obtained a restraining order — without a hearing — from the San Francisco court, which ordered Gulley: “Do not make any social media posts about or impersonate [Adams] and the company Science on Trial on any public or social media platform.”

An order prohibiting future speech is a prior restraint — the “most serious” type of infringement on First Amendment rights. FIRE and California attorney Matthew Strugar came to Gulley’s defense. We filed two motions:

• A motion to quash, challenging the California court’s jurisdiction over Amy Gulley, a Pennsylvania resident who had never been to California. The Constitution’s  due process guarantees means that a state court does not have jurisdiction over someone who lacks “minimum contacts” with that state. If criticizing someone online meant that person could sue you where they happen to live, a SLAPP plaintiff could force you to hire lawyers to defend yourself in a far-away court–and that can chill protected speech. 
   
• An anti-SLAPP motion. A “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation,” or SLAPP, is a lawsuit meant to chill protected expression by using the legal process as a cudgel: Even if the person who filed the lawsuit loses, they accomplish their goal of making you spend time and money defending your rights in court, making it costly to criticize them — and encouraging self-censorship. California is one of 34 states that tries to mitigate these costs by providing an early way to end lawsuits targeting protected speech. Anti-SLAPP motions require a plaintiff to show proof of their claims early in a lawsuit. If they cannot, they have to pay the defendant’s attorneys’ fees. That is a way to prevent people from using the legal process itself to deter criticism. 

The “temporary” restraining order was repeatedly extended over the course of 115 days — without a hearing. When Adams finally responded to the anti-SLAPP motion, she provided documents she declared were proof that “I possess a PhD in Biochemistry from Cambridge University.” One of those documents was a degree certificate from the University of Cambridge’s “Gonville and Cauis College,” dated June 29, 2017. 

FIRE pointed out in response that the certificate Adams submitted did not appear to be authentic:

• The college’s name on the certificate was misspelled, as the name of the college is “Caius,” not “Cauis.”
   
• The certificate purported to be signed by Registrary Jonathan Nicholls, but he had retired (and was replaced by Acting Registrary of the University Emma Rampton) five months before the date on the certificate. Photographs of the June 29, 2017 graduation, posted to Facebook by the college, showed the certificates issued that day were signed by the “Acting Registrary of the University,” not the retired Nicholls.
   
• Adams had testified in her divorce trial — in November 2017, five months after the certificate’s date — that she had been required to “rewrite the entirety of [her] thesis” and had not yet completed it, and that she was still trying to complete her PhD.

On September 30, 2024, the court held a hearing, ultimately granting the motion to quash. The court described the anti-SLAPP motion as “compelling,” but declined to rule on its merits because the court determined it did not have jurisdiction. After 115 days, the prior restraint was dissolved.

Prior restraints are among the most pernicious forms of censorship because they halt speech before it occurs. The threats they pose to freedom of speech are exacerbated when they are issued without a hearing — or force you to defend your constitutional rights in a far-away court. In taking cases like this, FIRE makes it harder for people to use the costly legal system as a way to harass their critics.

The substantive filings in the case are available here.