Mississippi Judge Goes Full Prior Restraint, Allows City To Demand Removal Of Op-Ed Criticizing It

Blithely ignoring decades of jurisprudence, Mississippi Chancery Judge Crystal Wise Martin issued a temporary restraining order directing a small local paper, the Clarksdale Press Register to remove an op-ed that criticized the city for holding a meeting that was supposed to public without notifying the public about the upcoming meeting.

This order was crafted and issued without any input from the affected paper. Instead, the decision was made solely based on the allegations of the city and its legal representative, Melvin D. Miller II. Ken White (a.k.a. Popehat) engaged the attorney in a bit of emailed conversation, sussing out the fact that, although the attorney seems to be a decent guy otherwise, he seems to firmly believe this isn't prior restraint because the newspaper published the op-ed before the city managed to force it to take it down.

He also seems to feel it's defamatory" to suggest the city purposely failed to notify the public (the city claims it was a mistake") - something that's clearly not remotely true in terms of case law. And he seems to think a government entity can sue for defamation, which is similarly not even remotely true.

This is the entire op-ed that got the city so bothered it filed a patently ridiculous lawsuit and somehow managed to convince a judge to violate the First Amendment on its behalf:

YourClarksdale Press Registerwill be the first to say that a sin tax that would pay police to fight crime in Clarksdale is a good idea.

So why did the City of Clarksdale fail to go to the public with details about this idea before it sent a resolution to the Mississippi Legislature seeking a two-percent tax on alcohol, marijuana and tobacco?

Mayor Chuck Espy has always touted how open" and transparent"he is and he is not like previous administrations of the past 30 years."

So why did Espy seek a Special Called Meeting of the Board of Mayor and Commissioners to finalize details of this move?

The notice was posted at city hall as required by law and said stated the city would give appropriate notice thereof to the media."

This newspaper was never notified. We know of no other media organization that was notified.

But back to what the city was trying to do.

Yes, there are deadlines for submitting legislation to Jackson. But this tax has been discussed in at least two meetings and has been reported in the pages of yourClarksdale Press Register.

Have commissioners or the mayor gotten kick-back from the community? Until Tuesday we had not heard of any. Maybe they just want a few nights in Jackson to lobby for this idea - at public expense.

As with all legislation, the devil is in the details and how legislation often morphs into something else that benefits somebody else.

An idea that sought to pay police higher wages for the toughest job in any community is admirable. But the way the resolution sought by the city of Clarksdale is now written gives us cause for concern.

The money - our money - can now be spent to support and promote public safety, crime prevention and continued economic growth in the city."

Does that mean the fire department, 911, Chamber of Commerce and their pet projects?

Does that promotion mean, giving away candy at Halloween, toy giveaways at Christmas and hosting events where politicians can hand out goody bags to voters in the name of safety?

This newspaper feels the original intent serves the purpose of all - putting police on the streets of Clarksdale.

More police will lead to more patrols, more patrols will lead to more arrests, more arrests will lead to less crime and less crime will make us all feel safer in our homes and neighborhoods.

Our Clarksdale Board of Mayor and Commissioners have stumped their toe on this one. They took a good idea, let their focus drift, and made us suspicious.

That's being republished here because the Clarksdale paper has complied with this clearly unlawful court order and removed it from its website.

But as terrible as the city has been on this and as ignorant as its legal rep is about First Amendment law, the real villain here is Judge Martin, who could have easily determined this attempt to silence the paper was unconstitutional and told the city's lawyer to GTFO. But she went the other way - without even giving the paper a chance to reply - and gave the city what it wanted. Here's the most relevant part of the court order, as provided by Adam Steinbaugh:

THIS MATTER having come before this Court on the verified Petition of the City of Clarksdale requesting a temporary restraining order or a hearing on a preliminary injunction and after review of the verified Petition and Attorney Certification, the Court finds that the Petition is well taken. 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. The Respondents are well aware of the accusations against them as they have already received a draft of the verified Petition and further notice is not needed until such hearing. The Temporary Restraining Order for Respondents to remove the article EDITORIAL: SECRECY AND DECEPTION ERODE PUBLIC TRUST" from their online portals and make it inaccessible to the public is hereby granted.

The judge's stance on the issue is as ridiculous as the city's. But it looks like the city definitely wanted this particular judge to take the case. It looks like the city and its attorney did a little bit of judge-shopping before filing. There's a Chancery court located in Clarksdale, Mississippi.

Despite that - as Steinbaugh pointed out on Bluesky - the lawsuit was filled in Hinds County, which is more than 150 miles away from where the alleged injury" took place.

Maybe city officials don't know that law. That's worrisome, but some lack of legal specifics is to be expected. Maybe the city's lawyer doesn't understand First Amendment law. That's far more worrying, especially when a city decides it's going to start filing defamation lawsuits that are strictly forbidden by US Supreme Court precedent. And even if the lawyer doesn't know the law, the court - even at this lower level - definitely should. And even if Judge Martin wasn't exactly up on all the legal precedent established... well, more than 100 years ago, she should have recognized this had First Amendment implications and, at the very least, given the paper a chance to respond before issuing a court order. Had the judge done that, there's a good chance this order would never have been issued as the paper's lawyers would have made it clear (1) this isn't defamation, and (2) the city has no legal right to engage in this sort of lawsuit.

But until that happens, the op-ed has been taken down and the city is celebrating its victory" on social media. This lawsuit should never have been filed. And no judge in this nation should have issued this order, which clearly and blatantly violates the First Amendment.