Incident Details
- Date of Incident
- February 18, 2025
- Location
- Jackson, Mississippi
- Targets
- The Clarksdale Press Register
- Status of Prior Restraint
- Dropped
- Mistakenly Released Materials?
- No
Prior Restraint
A portion of the Feb. 18, 2025, order placing a prior restraint on The Clarksdale Press Register and requiring the newspaper to remove an editorial about the City of Clarksdale, Mississippi, from its online portals.
Mississippi court lifts order requiring newspaper to unpublish editorial
An order requiring The Clarksdale Press Register to remove an editorial from its website and other online portals was lifted on Feb. 26, 2025, more than a week after the prior restraint was authorized by a judge in Jackson, Mississippi.
The publishing gag was initially granted by Chancery Court Judge Crystal Wise Martin after the City of Clarksdale filed a lawsuit Feb. 14 arguing that the editorial, headlined “Secrecy, deception erode public trust” — pulled from the site but republished Feb. 27 — was defamatory.
During a board meeting on Feb. 24, city commissioners voted to voluntarily dismiss the lawsuit against the Press Register, asserting that they had reached a compromise with the newspaper’s owner.
“I am very thankful that this matter is now resolved due to the efforts of the owner of The Clarksdale Press Register and the City of Clarksdale,” Mayor Chuck Espy said. “I am thankful to the owner of the paper for meeting the city halfway with having clarifying language that clearly clarifies Clarksdale’s position, the Clarksdale Press Register’s position.”
However, Wyatt Emmerich, owner of the Press Register, told the Tracker that he had not communicated with city leadership since they filed their suit, and that the offer to clarify the article was made before the lawsuit was filed.
The city filed its motion to dismiss the case with the court Feb. 24 and Wise Martin lifted her order two days later, according to court filings reviewed by the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker. She noted, however, that she had been “prepared, ready, and willing” to rule on the merits of the case.
Emmerich told the Tracker he believes the city was influenced by the “tsunami of support” the newspaper received in the wake of the order, particularly from First Amendment advocates.
“I think with the overwhelming support throughout the nation and the adverse publicity, they realized they had made a big mistake and so they changed their mind,” Emmerich said. “I warned them that this was going to happen and embarrass the city and them, but they didn't listen to me, and that's exactly what happened.”
The Clarksdale Press Register was ordered to remove an editorial from its website and other online portals on Feb. 18, 2025, after the City of Clarksdale, Mississippi, alleged the article was defamatory.
The editorial, headlined “Secrecy, deception erode public trust” — pulled from the site but archived here — was published on Feb. 8, and detailed how the mayor’s office had failed to properly notify the public of a special meeting held four days prior.
“Mayor Chuck Espy has always touted how ‘open’ and ‘transparent’ he is and he is ‘not like previous administrations of the past 30 years,’” the editorial said. While notice of the meeting was posted on the door of City Hall, it continued, “This newspaper was never notified. We know of no other media organization that was notified.”
In an affidavit, the city clerk admitted that she had not emailed the media a notice announcing the meeting, as required by state law. Floyd Ingram, publisher and editor of the Press Register, approached her after the meeting to ask about its subject, and she said that she gave him a copy of the notice, an agenda, a resolution passed during the meeting and other materials.
Chancery Court Judge Crystal Wise Martin granted the city’s motion for a temporary restraining order without allowing the newspaper to argue against it, ruling that the Press Register must unpublish the article.
“The injury in this case is defamation against public figures through actual malice in reckless disregard of the truth,” Wise Martin wrote in her order, “and interferes with their legitimate function to advocate for legislation they believe would help their municipality during this current legislative cycle.”
The city praised the ruling in a post to its official Facebook page.
“The judge ruled in our favor that a newspaper cannot tell a malicious lie and not be held liable,” Mayor Espy said. “The only thing that I ask, that no matter what you print, just let it be the truth; be it good or bad.”
City Attorney Melvin Miller II added: “The City touts this as a victory for truth. Not even newspapers can imply lies against City officials conducting city business and get away with it.”
First Amendment advocates, however, criticized the decision. Seth Stern, director of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation, said in a statement that an order compelling a newspaper to take down an editorial critical of the government was blatantly unconstitutional.
“The underlying lawsuit here appears frivolous for any number of reasons,” Stern said. “But even in constitutionally permissible defamation lawsuits, it’s been well-established law for decades that the remedy for plaintiffs is monetary damages, not censorship orders.”
Adam Steinbaugh, a First Amendment lawyer at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, also noted that the Supreme Court ruled in New York Times v. Sullivan that governments can’t sue for libel.
The editorial was removed from the Press Register website on the morning of Feb. 19. The newspaper did not respond to requests for comment.
A full hearing on granting a permanent injunction is scheduled for Feb. 27.
The U.S. Press Freedom Tracker catalogues press freedom violations in the United States. Email tips to [email protected].