The city of Clarksdale managed to get a Hinds County Chancellor to remove a newspaper's critical editorial from its website in a secret hearing held Tuesday.
The Clarksdale Press Register published a February 6 editorial that slammed the Clarksdale Board of Ealdormen and Mayor Chuck Espy over a vote taken at a special meeting. Aggrieved, Clarksdale sued the newspaper, its owner, and Floyd Ingram in Hinds County Chancery Court on February 14. Happy Valentine's Day.
Emmerich Newspapers owns Delta Press Publishing Company d/b/a the Clarksdale Press Register. Floyd Ingram is the editor of the Register.
The Clarksdale Board of Ealdormen voted for a resolution supporting local and private tax legislation at a special meeting on February 4. Notice of the meeting was posted on the courthouse door as required by law. The complaint claims the meeting was streamed live on the "Mayor's public Facebook page." However, the complaint is in error because the meeting was live-streamed on the city's Facebook page.
The Register published an editorial accusing the city of acting in "secrecy" and "deception." The editorial opens "Your Clarksdale Press Register will be the first to say that a sin tax that would pay police to fight crime is a good idea." The city approved a resolution asking the Legislature to give it permission to implement a two-cent tax on alcohol, medical marijuana, and tobacco. Who could be against taxing the drinkers, smokers, and tokers?
The editorial states "This newspaper was never notified. We know of no other media organization that was notified." The complaint claims the city clerk "forgot" to email a notice of the meeting to Mr. Ingram as she customarily does even though the law requires she do so. Section 25-41-13 (1)(b) of the Mississippi Code states:
a notice of a called special meeting shall be posted to the public body's website, if the public body has a website and has the capability to update the website, not less than one (1) hour before the meeting. A copy of this notice shall be transmitted via email or facsimile not less than one (1) hour before the meeting to any citizen and any publication, broadcast and digital media with a general circulation or coverage within the public body's jurisdiction, that has submitted in writing its interest to receive these notices.
The meeting was held at noon on February 4. Mr. Ingram appeared at the City Clerk's office and obtained the agenda and resolution a couple of hours later. (Correction: This post erroneously reported Mr. Ingram attended the meeting.).
A sentence in the middle of the editorial is probably what drew the ire of the Mayor and his Ealdormen: "Have commissioners or the mayor gotten kickback 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."
Mr. Emmerich told this correspondent kickback can mean illegal payoffs but the editorial meant it as "pushback." He cited the second definition as published by Miriam Webster:
1: A return of part of a sum received often because of confidential agreement or coercion.
2. A sharp, violent reaction.
The rest of the editorial continued in this vein:
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 pause 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 evens where politicians can hand out goody bags to voters (KF: or backpacks and school supplies to kids)?
The editorial concludes by accusing the city Solons of stumping "their toe on this one."
The petition for a temporary restraining order took strong exception to the editorial:
Ingram respectively published in the newspaper and posted as free content to online properties owned by CPR an article with the title ""EDITORIAL: SECRECY, DECEPTION ERODE PUBLIC TRUST."" In the article Mr. Ingram stated Clarksdale failed ""to go to the public with details"" about the idea of the proposed legislation. Within the context of his title, Mr. Ingram also strongly stated or implied the reason he did not receive notice to the February 4, 2025 meeting was because the Board and its members received ""kick-back,"" ""just want a few nights in Jackson to lobby for this idea - at public expense,"" give ""away candy at Halloween, toy giveaways at Christmas and hosting events where politicians can hand out goody bags to voters,"" and made the community ""suspicious."" His statements could be reasonably understood as declaring or implying that the "deceptive" reason he was not given notice of the meeting is provable through someone in the community willing to reveal promises made by Board members in exchange for votes or in the process of time.
The city claims the editorial "hindered" its efforts to lobby for the legislation at the Capitol while calling it "libelous." The complaint omitted the second part of the "kickback quote that stated "from the community."
Mayor Espy asked the Chancellor to issue a temporary restraining order that removed the article from its website and print publications as well as "any other relief" such as "monetary damages" and attorney's fees.
The case was assigned to Chancellor Crystal Wise Martin.
Although attorney Melvin Miller, II represents Clarksdale, Jackson attorney Ed Blackmon showed up in Court to represent the city Tuesday.
The Hinds County Chancellor granted the petition as she accepted the city's argument in its entirety:
Ingram respectively published in the newspaper and posted as free content to online properties owned by CPR an article with the title ""EDITORIAL: SECRECY, DECEPTION ERODE PUBLIC TRUST."" In the article Mr. Ingram stated Clarksdale failed ""to go to the public with details"" about the idea of the proposed legislation. Within the context of his title, Mr. Ingram also strongly stated or implied the reason he did not receive notice to the February 4, 2025 meeting was because the Board and its members received ""kick-back,"" ""just want a few nights in Jackson to lobby for this idea - at public expense,"" give ""away candy at Halloween, toy giveaways at Christmas and hosting events where politicians can hand out goody bags to voters,"" and made the community ""suspicious."" His statements could be reasonably understood as declaring or implying that the ""deceptive"" reason he was not given notice of the meeting is provable through someone in the community willing to reveal promises made by Board members in exchange for votes or in the process of time.
Although service of process was issued on February 14, Mr. Emmerich said he has not been served with a copy of the petition.
There is no notice of the February 18 hearing in the court docket. No one appeared in court to represent the newspaper. Such is allowed for TRO's. However, the Chancellor must hold another hearing within 10 days of the issuance of the TRO so the other party can present its case. Rule 65(b) of the Mississippi Rules of Chancery Practice states a TRO
shall expire by its terms within such time after entry, not to exceed ten days
Judge Martin scheduled a hearing for a preliminary injunction at 9:30 AM on February 27.
37 comments:
KF, why the word "Ealdormen"? Is ChatGPT replacing "Aldermen" for some reason?
Maybe the dumbest judicial decision that I have ever seen.
This is egregiously bad. The newspaper needs to file a Judicial Performance complaint. The lawsuit itself is frivolous but in no way, shape or form is this TRO worthy.
there must be a disclosed effort to notify the other side per the rule to get a TRO. but that's not stopping anyone these days. See D.C.
I didn't go to school to charge by the minute, so I have to ask the question. How can one from Coahoma County bring suit in Hinds County?
Nowhere in the legal profession is it truer that it takes years to build a good reputation and a minute to ruin it. You aren’t suppose to be able to get injunctions or TROs without posting a bond. You also aren’t supposed to be able to get them when there is a remedy at law such as a damages award, which there is here assuming the claim has merit, which it doesn’t. Really misguided order by Judge Martin. She trusted the wrong attorneys. She replaced her mother on the bench, who would have never fallen for this.
Some of y’all don’t understand that you get 3rd World thinking and action in the 3rd World.
Why is this in a Hinds County court?
You sure about that last sentence? Judge Wise was very political. She would not have ruled against the Blackmons and Espys.
I wish case had been assigned to Judge Thomas. He's the best chancellor we have.
Emmerich Newspapers is headquartered in Jackson (Northside Sun is the mothership).
As anyone with two contiguous brain cells could have predicted, the result of this order is that the editorial has been reposted thousands of times across the internet, and many more people have read it than would have been the case if the City has not gotten this order.
To the person asking about 'Ealdormen'--no, its not a substitution or typo; intentional. It's what people that read Harry Potter/play video games do to appear smart.
1st Amendment? We don't need no stinkin' 1st Amendment.
By filing suit, the city guaranteed that the local & private will fail.
Sounds to me like the city leaders and Floyd Ingram probably deserve each other.
In any event, I think accusing the city leaders of violating public meeting laws, when in fact they did not, is libelous. Maybe it could have been handled with a retraction/correction?
Justice is blind and apparently stupid.
@11:44 Thank you, Leftenant. I do neither of what you mentioned, but I do enjoy Classic British Military Comedies
11:47 The 1st Amendment does not protect the publishing of false information that is presented as fact.
I know that may come as a surprise to many, at this point.
1:11 - [citation needed]
United States v. Alvarez says you might not know what you're talking about.
A stupid judiciary is costly.
It seems to me the fix is in-
By seeking this TRO, these nuts have created 100,000 times more attention to the content of the article that would have occured otherwise.
But then, maybe that's what they WANTED!
Kingfish, I have beaten Blackmon's brains out in front of Wise. And I'm a Whitemon.
It is basic First Amendment law that a prior restraint (prohibiting publication) is unconstitutional. The appropriate action, if you feel you have been defamed, is a libel suit.
1:49, We aren't talking about a criminal law prohibiting stolen valor.
We're talking about a news publication that knew or reasonably should have known of the falsity of its statement, particularly because the author of the statement "attended the meeting in question and was given access to all materials such as the resolution and agenda."
So, here's your citation: Harte-Hanks Commc’ns v. Connaughton, 491 US 657 (1989).
-1:11
$100 Bond is insufficient.
6:08 you failed the bar exam 3 times didn't you. The case you cited merely reaffirms the Martin Luther King Jr. decision in N.Y Times v. Sullivan (1964).
Crystal will next order Mississippi Today to take down her cartoon drawn by Marshall Ramsey.
Ed doesn’t take cases that he’s going to lose.
This is the dumbest dispute that I have seen in a while.
What is the cure for thin skin and shattered egos.
Answer: municipal elections.
I know of two other instances in which she has done this - making a ruling without hearing the other side.
Extra points, KF, for the use of “Solons.” I haven’t seen that word employed since the days of Ellis Bodron and the Jackson Daily News.
or maybe some of us actually read history or watch The Last Kingdom, or having Winston Churchill's multi-volume set of a History of the English-Speaking Peoples on our shelf.
10:52, So Sullivan is still good law, right?
In that court under Judge Wise, there have been numerous rulings and judgments made without due process, testimony, trials or any opportunity for an opposing party to present factual information. seems that she goes for protecting political entities.
Post a Comment