A recent ruling made by a judge in Mississippi to compel a newspaper to remove a critical editorial targeting local officials has been overturned. This decision was reversed just days after the city withdrew the lawsuit that led to the initial order. The judge’s directive had sparked widespread outcry from advocates of free speech who viewed it as a blatant infringement on the newspaper’s First Amendment rights.
Chancery Judge Crystal Wise Martin had issued a restraining order against the Clarksdale Press Register last week, instructing the publication to take down an editorial published on February 8 titled “Secrecy, Deception Erode Public Trust.” The editorial had voiced concerns about the lack of notification provided by the city regarding a meeting held by the board to discuss a proposed tax on alcohol, marijuana, and tobacco.
Following a request from Mayor Chuck Espy, the board of commissioners decided to drop the lawsuit on Monday. The mayor pointed to an offer from the newspaper’s owner to publish a clarification as the reason for their decision. However, Wyatt Emmerich, the president of Emmerich Newspapers, clarified that his offer had been made prior to the city filing the lawsuit and was no longer valid.
In his offer, Emmerich had suggested clarifying that the council’s failure to notify was not an intentional effort to conceal the meeting, as well as correcting a statement implying possible community kickbacks to instead refer to community pushback. The city’s lawsuit had accused the editorial of being defamatory and of impeding the city’s advocacy efforts for the proposed tax with state lawmakers. Critics of the ruling, including the newspaper and various press freedom organizations, argued that the order constituted a clear case of prior restraint in violation of the First Amendment.
The ruling faced widespread condemnation from press associations and free speech defenders across the nation, including the National Press Club and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression had agreed to provide legal representation for the newspaper in court.
