Precedent or Censorship? Judge Orders Editorial Takedown in Mississippi

February 20, 2025 

Privacy Plus+ 

Privacy, Technology and Perspective

In a move that has alarmed First Amendment advocates, this week, a Mississippi state court judge ordered a local newspaper to remove an editorial critical of the Clarksdale City Council - adding to a troubling pattern of judicial actions against press freedom.

Background

New York Times v. Sullivan (U.S. 1964) remains the bedrock of first amendment jurisprudence.  The case arose from a full-page advertisement in the Times, paid for by supporters of Martin Luther King, Jr. The ad criticized the treatment of civil rights protesters in Alabama but contained minor factual inaccuracies about Dr. King's arrests and protest details. The Court established that "public figures" must prove false and defamatory statements were made with "actual malice" - knowledge or reckless disregard of falsity - to sustain defamation suits.

The Clarksdale Case

In Clarksdale, Mississippi - a historic Delta town of 14,903 residents known for its cotton heritage and blues culture - the local Press Register published an editorial criticizing the City Council's failure to notify the press of a special meeting. The meeting had been called to approve a resolution for a two percent sales tax on alcohol, marijuana, and tobacco. The editorial questioned the Council's motives regarding potential lobbying activities in Jackson.

The City Council, maintaining the notice failure was a clerical error, sued the paper, claiming that the editorial had “chilled and hindered [the mayor’s lobbying efforts in Jackson] due to the libelous assertions and statements by [the paper’s editor].”  The state trial court granted a temporary restraining order, stating that the harm being inflicted by the editorial constituted "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."

For context, it seems that the Press Register and Clarksdale city government do not enjoy a cozy relationship, the paper having recently criticized the Clarksdale mayor and council for pay raises that have made their small City’s officials among the highest-paid in the State.     

You can read more about this story by clicking on the following link:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/19/us/mississippi-judge-newspaper-editorial.html

Broader Context

 This case represents an escalating pattern of legal actions against local journalism. Recent precedents include the 2023 Kansas police raid on a local newspaper, seizing devices from the publisher's home, and the 2024 arrest of Alabama newspaper officials for publishing grand jury information. Additionally, Justices Clarence Thomas and Neal Gorsuch have called for reexaminations of New York Times, complaining that it and the Court’s decisions extending it “were policy-driven decisions masquerading as constitutional law” (Justice Thomas) and “…[have] evolved into an ironclad subsidy for the publication of falsehoods by means and on a scale previously unimaginable” (Justice Gorsuch). The Times notes that Sullivan continues to be cited approvingly in majority opinions, however.

You can read more about this by clicking on the following link:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/10/us/politics/supreme-court-libel-precedent.html

Our Thoughts

This trend represents a fundamental misunderstanding of First Amendment principles. While some actors invoke free speech protections to shield questionable content - including demonstrably false claims and coordinated disinformation campaigns - they simultaneously cry censorship when faced with legitimate criticism or fact-checking efforts. This selective interpretation fundamentally misreads New York Times v. Sullivan's core principle that the First Amendment must protect "vehement, caustic, and... unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials," even when uncomfortable for those in power.

The urgency of addressing this issue cannot be overstated. Public confidence in foundational democratic institutions continues to decline at an accelerating rate. While the press must certainly work to rebuild public trust through rigorous journalistic standards, the judiciary's role is equally critical. Decisions that appear to circumvent established First Amendment protections, such as the Clarksdale order, risk accelerating this erosion of institutional credibility rather than reinforcing constitutional principles.

When courts undermine First Amendment protections to shield public officials from criticism, they damage not just press freedom, but their own legitimacy.

---

Hosch & Morris, PLLC is a boutique law firm dedicated to data privacy and protection, cybersecurity, the Internet and technology. Open the Future℠.