Clarksdale, Mississippi Abruptly Drops Libel Lawsuit Against Local Newspaper
In a surprising turn of events, the city of Clarksdale, Mississippi, has withdrawn its libel lawsuit against the Clarksdale Press Register, a local newspaper it had accused of defamation just weeks prior. The lawsuit, initiated after the publication of a critical editorial, ignited a First Amendment debate and drew national attention.
The controversy began on February 8th with the publication of an editorial titled "Secrecy, Deception Erode Public Trust" in the Clarksdale Press Register. The editorial scrutinized the city’s mayor and commissioners for allegedly failing to adequately inform the media about a meeting concerning a proposed new tax. While the city maintained that a notice was posted at City Hall as legally required, the newspaper asserted that it, along with other media outlets, was not properly notified.
The editorial didn’t stop there. It further questioned the motives behind the alleged lack of transparency, posing provocative questions like, "Have commissioners or the mayor gotten kick-back from the community?" The editorial also speculated whether city officials intended to lobby for the tax proposal in Jackson, the state capital, at public expense.
On February 13th, the Clarksdale Board of Commissioners voted unanimously to sue the Clarksdale Press Register, claiming the editorial was libelous. The city’s swift legal action escalated the dispute dramatically.
Adding fuel to the fire, on February 18th, a Chancery Court judge in Hinds County, Crystal Wise Martin, granted the city’s request for a temporary restraining order. This order mandated the removal of the editorial from the newspaper’s website and effectively made it inaccessible to the public. The move was immediately condemned by free speech advocates, who argued it constituted an unconstitutional prior restraint on publication.
However, the situation took another unexpected turn nearly a week later. On Monday, Clarksdale’s board of commissioners filed a new request to dismiss the lawsuit, signaling a dramatic shift in the city’s stance.
Clarksdale Mayor Chuck Espy suggested that a "compromise" had been reached with the newspaper’s owner, an assertion that was promptly disputed. "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," Espy told the board before the vote. "I’m grateful for the compromise."
Espy claimed he was willing to accept an offer based on a text message from Wyatt Emmerich, president of Emmerich Newspapers, the parent company of the Clarksdale Press Register. The alleged offer involved a clarification of certain claims made in the editorial.
According to an undated message obtained by the Clarksdale Advocate, Emmerich reportedly offered to publish a clarification stating, "We will be willing to write a clarification that, according to the city council, the failure of the clerk to notify the newspaper, as is typical, was because she was extremely busy, not any deliberate effort to hide the meeting." The message also stated a willingness to clarify the phrase "kick back from the community," asserting it meant "push back from the community" and was not intended to suggest any illegal activity.
However, Emmerich vehemently denied that an agreement was ever finalized. He told Fox News Digital that the offer to publish a clarification was made on February 14th, before the lawsuit was officially filed, and was contingent on the city not pursuing legal action. "The offer was rescinded the same day because Clarksdale Press Register publisher Floyd Ingram would not accept it without quitting," Emmerich explained. "The city then filed the lawsuit on Feb. 14. A week later, Mayor Espy posted the clarification on his website saying we had reached an agreement. I gave no authorization for the mayor to publish the clarification nor say we reached an agreement. We have not published any clarification."
Emmerich suggested the city’s decision to drop the suit was likely prompted by the widespread condemnation it received nationally. He further indicated the newspaper plans to restore the original editorial to its website once the judge rescinds the temporary restraining order, a request the city has also made.
Fox News Digital’s attempts to solicit comments from Mayor Espy and his city attorneys were unsuccessful.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), which had agreed to defend the Press Register, applauded the city’s decision in a public statement on Tuesday. "If asking whether a politician might be corrupt was libel, virtually every American would be bankrupt," said FIRE attorney Josh Bleisch. "For good reason, courts have long held that political speech about government officials deserves the widest latitude and the strongest protection under the First Amendment. That’s true from the White House all the way down to your local councilman."
The sudden reversal in Clarksdale highlights the importance of a free press and the protections afforded to journalists under the First Amendment. The case also underscores the potential pitfalls for public officials who attempt to silence critical voices through legal action. The saga has served as a stark reminder of the crucial role newspapers play in holding local governments accountable. The resolution, while welcomed by free speech advocates, leaves lingering questions about the initial motivations behind the lawsuit and the city’s subsequent decision to abruptly drop the case. The events in Clarksdale will likely be studied as a case example in media law and First Amendment rights for some time to come.
