Judge orders Mississippi newspaper to delete editorial criticizing public officials

First Amendment lawyers and press freedom advocates blast blatantly ‘unconstitutional’ order

First Amendment lawyers and press freedom advocates are sounding alarms after a Mississippi newspaper was forced by a judge to delete an editorial criticizing city officials in Clarksdale.

The city sued the publishers of the Clarksdale Press Register over an editorial from February 8, which criticized officials for failing to notify the public about a hearing on proposed tax increases.

On Tuesday, without a hearing to review the allegations, Hinds County Chancery Court Judge Crystal Wise Martin ordered the newspaper to “remove” the column from its website.

In her order, the judge noted that the case involves allegations of “defamation against public figures through actual malice in reckless disregard of the truth and interferes with their legitimate function to advocate for legislation they believe would help their municipality during this current legislative cycle.”

The editorial was removed from the newspaper’s website on Wednesday.

Clarksdale, Mississippi Mayor Chuck Espy celebrated a court's decision ordering a local newspaper to delete an editorial that criticized city officials (City of Clarksdale)

Clarksdale Mayor Chuck Espy hailed the decision on Facebook.

“Thank GOD! The City of Clarksdale WON today!” he wrote Tuesday. “The judge ruled in our favor that a newspaper cannot tell a malicious lie and not be held liable. The newspaper had to take down a false story that they printed. The only thing that I ask, that no matter what you print, just let it be the truth; be it good or bad. Thank you GOD for a judicial system.”

It is unclear what Espy believes is “false” and “malicious” about the editorial. A city clerk even submitted an affidavit admitting she “failed” to notify the media about the hearing.

“It's hard to imagine a more unconstitutional order than one compelling a newspaper to take down an editorial critical of the government,” Seth Sterns, director of advocacy for the Freedom of the Press Foundation, told The Independent.

“And it’s particularly ironic when the editorial in question is about government secrecy undermining the public trust,” he added. “If anyone previously trusted the secretive officials involved in this censorship campaign, they shouldn't now.”

The latest challenge to First Amendment press protections joins a nationwide increase in legal requests to censor the press through “prior restraint,” a rarely used court order to block publishers.

Clarksdale’s case, however, is “uniquely egregious,” according to Sterns.

“There is no small sense of irony here in that you have a city suing over an editorial accusing them of hiding, and then getting a court order telling them to hide,” Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression attorney Adam B. Steinbaugh told The Independent.

Prior restraints are “thankfully” not frequent, typically deployed only to limit coverage of criminal trials or to prevent the publication of particular facts to preserve a defendant’s right to a fair trial, Steinbaugh said.

“But trying to take down an editorial and doing it with a court order with no hearing? That is very unusual,” he said. “And it’s even more unusual for a government itself to ask. … It’s egregious enough when a public official makes that demand.”

The case is “another example that the threats to freedom of expression don’t necessarily come from the highest levels of government,” Steinbaugh said.

“It could be the president, could be your local mayor, could be Republicans, could be Democrats,” he told The Independent.

The Supreme Court was asked by Trump ally Steve Wynn to reverse long-standing case precedent that protects press freedoms (Getty Images)

Since returning to the presidency, Donald Trump’s administration has blocked the Associated Press from covering White House events, promoted misleading claims about Reuters, removed space for journalists at the Pentagon, and launched investigations into media organizations the president routinely attacks.

Throughout his campaign, Trump fired off lawsuits and legal threats to major broadcasters and publishers, including a $10 billion lawsuit against CBS News and a defamation lawsuit against ABC News host George Stephanopoulos that the network ultimately settled for $15 million.

His attorneys also made legal threats to The Daily Beast, The New York Times and Penguin Random House and unsuccessfully sued CNN and The New York Times, efforts to challenge long-standing libel laws and media protections to make it easier to punish the press in court.

In January, Republican billionaire Steve Wynn petitioned the Supreme Court to “correct its past mistakes” and reverse the 60-year-old precedent from the landmark case of New York Times v Sullivan, which guaranteed protections for speech against government and public officials.

“Sullivan is not equipped to handle the world as it is today — media is no longer controlled by companies that employ legions of factcheckers before publishing an article,” Wynn’s lawyers wrote.

Members of “the legacy media have resorted to libelous headlines and false reports to generate views. This Court need not further this golden era of lies,” according to Wynn.

A hearing in the Clarksdale case is scheduled for February 27.

The Independent has requested comment from the publishers and city officials.