I'm not a constitutional expert, but I'm pretty sure free speech is still a thing here in the U.S., so someone might want to let this judge in Mississippi know.
Hinds County Chancellor Crystal Wise Martin issued a temporary restraining order against the Clarksdale Press Register for publishing an editorial criticizing the Clarksdale mayor and city council and made them remove the article.
The city called the editorial "libelous."
And the judge ruled in their favor without a hearing:
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 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.
However, the Clarksdale paper claims there's nothing libelous or defamatory in the editorial that isn't true.
The column criticized the city for not sending the newspaper notice about a meeting city commissioners held over a proposed effort to ask the state Legislature for permission to enact a local tax on alcohol, marijuana and tobacco.
But why take either of their words for it?
Even though the paper took the article down because of the court order, the internet is forever.
The criticism is over a change in language for a proposed tax. A change that city officials held a secret meeting to finalize, hiding it from the press.
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?
This newspaper feels the original intent serves the purpose of all - putting police on the streets of Clarksdale.
Sure, there are some suggestions of dirty politics there, but nothing approaching malicious defamation.
And using the local judicial system to walk all over their paper's constitutionally protected speech sure doesn't make the government of Clarksdale look like the good guys here.
I like the way Adam Steinbaugh phrases it:
If there were only one thing the First Amendment says you can't do, it's this.
The city and the court folded almost immediately after the story went viral 👇
Mess around, find out!
P.S. Now check out our latest video 👇
