City Drops Defamation Lawsuit Against Newspaper for Editorial Criticizing Officials

Hinds County Chancery Judge Crystal Wise Martin during a hearing in Jackson, Miss., on Aug. 23, 2022. Rogelio V. Solis/AP Photo

Clarksdale, a city in Mississippi, is dropping a lawsuit filed against The Clarksdale Press Register. The lawsuit had accused the newspaper of defaming officials.

On Feb. 8, The Clarksdale Press Register published an editorial titled “Secrecy, Deception Erode Public Trust” which criticized city officials at Clarksdale and the mayor for scheduling a special session to approve a request to the state to increase taxes on tobacco, marijuana, and alcohol. The session was scheduled without informing the public. State law requires that a copy of notices announcing specially called meetings must be sent to media and publications.

The Clarksdale Press Register claimed that neither they nor any media organization they know of were notified. The editorial questioned the interest of city officials on the matter.

City officials subsequently filed a lawsuit, accusing the newspaper of defaming public officials. It called the editorial libelous and argued the article “chilled and hindered” the city’s efforts to lobby for taxes with state legislators. Last week, Hinds County Chancery Judge Crystal Wise Martin ordered the editorial be taken down.

On Monday, the city of Clarksdale’s board of commissioners sought to dismiss its libel lawsuit against The Clarksdale Press Register, filing the request moments after its board of commissioners approved the move.

Martin must still dismiss her order that the editorial be removed from the paper’s website, which the city also asked her to do. She had originally set a hearing for Thursday in the case.

“It’s still very, very wrong what they did [the lawsuit] and it awakened the entire First Amendment community nationally, which is very encouraging,” said Wyatt Emmerich, president of Emmerich Newspapers, parent company of the paper.

“I’m really excited to see how all these people rallied around us to protect our rights.”

Clarksdale Mayor Chuck Espy said he asked commissioners to drop the lawsuit because of an offer Emmerich made to write a clarification. Emmerich, however, said that offer was made before the lawsuit was filed and the judge’s order, and is “off the table.”

Free Speech Attack

The lawsuit filed by Clarksdale had sought a temporary restraining order or a hearing on a preliminary injunction.

Martin sided with the city, issuing a temporary restraining order asking for the removal of the editorial from online portals and making it inaccessible to the public, according to the court order. A hearing on the city’s request for a preliminary injunction was scheduled for Feb. 27.

In the order, the judge wrote that “the injury in this case is 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.”

In an affidavit submitted to the court, the city clerk said she posted a notice regarding the special meeting on the door to City Hall but forgot to email a copy to the media.

After the special meeting concluded, Floyd Ingram, publisher and editor of The Clarksdale Press Register, “came to my office and inquired about the subject matter” of the meeting.

“I apologized for neglecting to send him the Notice of Special Meeting as I usually would have done and stated how busy I have been due to the upcoming elections.”

The clerk said she gave a copy of the notice at the time, together with the agenda of the meeting, the resolution passed during the meeting, and the local and private legislation that was the subject of the resolution.

“Mr. Ingram expressed gratitude to me and I observed that he was smiling as he left,” said the affidavit.

The city’s decision to drop the lawsuit comes as many advocacies had criticized authorities, accusing them of cracking down on free speech.

After the court issued the restraining order, Adam Steinbaugh, attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, called the decision “unconstitutional.”

“In the United States, the government can’t determine what opinions may be shared in the public square. A free society does not permit governments to sue newspapers for publishing editorials.”

National Press Club President Mike Balsamo said the court order asking to delete the editorial “isn’t just wrong—it’s unconstitutional.”

“This is bigger than one newspaper or one ruling. If a judge can make journalism disappear with the stroke of a pen, what’s next? A free press is not a privilege—it’s a right.”

The Associated Press contributed to the report.