Shingleton v. Moon (Kiwi Farms Censorship Case)

A model and tattoo artist from Ontario got a Florida judge to sign an ex parte stalking injunction against Joshua Moon, the operator of the internet forum Kiwi Farms, over posts that other people wrote about her. It was the culmination of a ten-year spat between Victoria Shingleton and Kiwi Farms, and it ended thirteen days later, when Marc Randazza stood up in a Sarasota courtroom and had the whole thing thrown out under the First Amendment and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Who is Victoria Shingleton?

Victoria Shingleton promotes herself as “Victoria Bella-Morte” and “Miss Victoria Murder,” a model and tattoo artist. In 2016 she sent Moon a “law enforcement notice” demanding that a thread on a different website be deleted within 24 hours. Kiwi Farms had no thread about her at the time. Its users then started one. She then tried to get the entire site banned, and threatened Moon with the Attorney General of Canada. None of that worked, so in September 2026 she filed for an ex parte injunction, and shockingly Florida judge Thomas Krug granted it.

A Prior Restraint based on other people’s speech

Her petition accused Moon of “stalking,” but it did not identify one word that Moon wrote, sent, or directed to her. It also confused Kiwi Farms with “lolcow.farm,” a different site run by different people. Moon’s only post about her was a 2016 comment making fun of her threat to send the police after him.

The injunction entered exposed Moon to warrantless arrest if a stranger posted something “pertaining to” Shingleton, and it stripped him of his Second Amendment rights as well. That is a prior restraint. “[P]rior restraints on speech and publication are the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights.” Neb. Press Ass’n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 559 (1976). And as we love to cite, Kinney v. Barnes, 443 S.W.3d 87, 91 n.7 (Tex. 2014) (“For your information, the Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint.” citing Walter Sobchak).

36 Busy Hours

Nobody served Moon. Shingleton emailed him the injunction at 6:17 p.m. on a Friday, with the final hearing set for Tuesday morning and the courthouse closed Monday for Yom Kippur. Randazza got the file on Sunday. On Monday the firm filed an emergency motion to dissolve the injunction (link to it), and at 10:00 a.m. Tuesday Randazza was in Sarasota defending Kiwi Farms’ First Amendment rights.

After Shingleton testified, Randazza skipped cross-examination and moved to dismiss on her own testimony: even if every word were true, her complaint was that Moon let other people speak and declined to delete what they said. Section 230 prohibits claims on that basis, and nothing Moon himself said falls outside the First Amendment. When Shingleton invoked Ontario’s “very strict” online harassment laws, Randazza answered:

“I think the petitioner has a different view of what freedom of expression means. In Canada, the charter of rights and freedoms is what you might get if you ordered the constitution off of Temu.” (Tr. 69:22-25.)

The court dissolved the injunction and dismissed the case with prejudice, finding “[i]nsufficient evidence that respondent committed cyberstalking” and citing “47 USC Section 230.”

From AutoAdmit to Kiwi Farms

Randazza has been defending controversial forums for almost twenty years. It started with Doe v. Ciolli, the AutoAdmit case, where Randazza, then a relatively inexperienced lawyer up against big law firms and huge names, successfully defended Anthony Ciolli. Randazza Legal Group defends freedom of expression, always has, always will.