On Feb. 8, the Clarksdale Press-Register published an editorial saying the city of Clarksdale had failed to notify the newspaper of a special call meeting despite the city claiming it had.
The editorial speculated that failing to notify the newspaper could be considered a deliberate attempt to avoid scrutiny.
The city sued the newspaper for defamation and on Tuesday, a Hinds County chancery judge issued a temporary restraining order against the newspaper and ordered that the editorial be removed from the newspaper’s website.
“What the city is doing is wildly unconstitutional,” First Amendment lawyer Adam Steinbaugh noted on a social media post. “For one, *governments* can’t sue for libel. Full stop.”
That’s just for starters.
The restraining order is also a clear violation of the First Amendment protection against prior restraint because action was taken against the newspaper before an official hearing.
In her order, chancery judge Crystal Wise Martin wrote “the injury in this case is defamation against public officials through actual malice in reckless disregard for the truth…”
But in its own court filing the city admitted that what the newspaper editorial alleged was true. Truth is, of course, an absolute defense for libel.
There is also a failure by the city (and apparently the judge) to understand the concept of defamation. Because a statement must be false to be defamatory, a statement of opinion in an editorial cannot form the basis of a defamation claim because it cannot be proven true or false.
This isn’t the first time newspapers, including The Dispatch, have faced situations where local governments have failed to honor the spirit of open meeting laws. In most cases, a local government will challenge the finer points of the situation, but in this case the City of Clarksdale engaged in a full frontal assault on free speech as outlined in the First Amendment.
That a judge, who we would presume would know such fundamental tenets of the First Amendment, would agree with the city and order the newspaper to remove content from its website is probably the best argument we can make for why judges should not be elected. They should be chosen on merit, not popularity.
A full hearing on the case is set for Feb. 27, where we assume it should only take about 10 seconds to reverse the chancery judge’s ruling and uphold The Press-Register’s First Amendment right to publish the editorial.
When governments are allowed to suppress the free speech rights of the media, it is also an attack on the rights of the public, who often rely on newspapers and other media for news about what their elected officials are doing.
Our Founding Fathers understood the importance of a free press and the important role it plays in making government accountable to the people.
Even so, from time to time, the media’s First Amendment rights are foolishly challenged, as we are again reminded in this case.
The Dispatch Editorial Board is made up of publisher Peter Imes, columnist Slim Smith, managing editor Zack Plair and senior newsroom staff.
You can help your community
Quality, in-depth journalism is essential to a healthy community. The Dispatch brings you the most complete reporting and insightful commentary in the Golden Triangle, but we need your help to continue our efforts. In the past week, our reporters have posted 36 articles to cdispatch.com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2.30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.
You can help your community
Quality, in-depth journalism is essential to a healthy community. The Dispatch brings you the most complete reporting and insightful commentary in the Golden Triangle, but we need your help to continue our efforts. In the past week, our reporters have posted 36 articles to cdispatch.com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2.30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.
