Judge Orders Local Newspaper to Remove an Editorial Critical of the City Government From Its Website

A Mississippi judge has ordered The Clarksdale Press Register to remove an editorial criticizing the local government, sparking outrage among press freedom advocates. The newspaper’s publisher plans to challenge the ruling.

Key Facts:

Judge Crystal Wise Martin issued a temporary restraining order on Feb. 13, forcing The Clarksdale Press Register to take down an editorial critical of city officials.
The editorial, titled “Secrecy, deception erode public trust,” accused Clarksdale leaders of failing to notify the media about a special meeting where they approved a tax resolution.
City officials sued for libel, claiming the editorial harmed their ability to advocate for the tax and included false allegations.
Legal experts argue the ruling is unconstitutional, as the First Amendment protects criticism of public officials.
The Press Register’s owner, Wyatt Emmerich, vowed to fight the decision, calling it a clear violation of free speech.

The Rest of The Story:

The editorial in question accused Clarksdale officials of holding a secretive meeting to approve a 2% tax increase on alcohol, marijuana, and tobacco.

The newspaper stated that neither it nor any other media outlet received proper notice.

City officials argued that the omission was accidental and sued the paper, claiming the editorial hindered their ability to lobby for the tax.

Mayor Chuck Espy accused the newspaper of spreading “malicious lies” and previously threatening legal action against it.

On Feb. 13, Judge Martin sided with the city, ordering the paper to remove the editorial.

Legal experts, including the Mississippi Press Association and First Amendment advocates, denounced the ruling as unconstitutional censorship.

Wow: The City of Clarksdale, Mississippi, got a court order yesterday directing a newspaper to delete an editorial criticizing city officials — without a hearing. Here's the TRO issuing the prior restraint: pic.twitter.com/dIL1AgLhI1

— Adam Steinbaugh (@adamsteinbaugh) February 19, 2025

Commentary:

A judge ordering a newspaper to remove an editorial criticizing the government is an alarming attack on the First Amendment.

The right to scrutinize public officials is fundamental to a free press and a free society.

If government leaders can silence criticism through the courts, democracy itself is at risk.

There is no legal justification for this ruling.

The Supreme Court’s landmark New York Times v. Sullivan case explicitly protects the press from government officials suing over critical coverage unless they can prove “actual malice.”

That standard was not met here.

The judge’s reasoning—that criticism of officials “interferes” with their work—sets a dangerous precedent.

Public officials do not have a right to be free from scrutiny.

If anything, this ruling highlights why public oversight is so critical.

C'mon everyone and read the editorial Clarksdale, Mississippi city officials don't want you to see. https://t.co/SvkCpad0jN pic.twitter.com/qMI8YWJJ77

— Alex Morey (@1AMorey) February 19, 2025

Even if the city clerk forgot to send the notice, that does not justify censorship.

The newspaper had a duty to inform the public, and the city’s attempt to silence it is a blatant abuse of power.

The judge who issued this ruling should be removed.

No one who disregards the Constitution so blatantly should remain on the bench.

The appellate court must overturn this ruling immediately to restore the integrity of the law and protect press freedom.

The Bottom Line:

This ruling is a direct assault on the First Amendment and must not stand.

The government cannot silence criticism just because officials dislike it.

If allowed to go unchallenged, this dangerous precedent could be used to suppress any unfavorable reporting.

The court must correct this injustice, and the judge should be held accountable for violating constitutional rights.