This is wildly unconstitutional. Here's the editorial, questioning why the city didn't notify the media about a special meeting to pursue a tax increase. It is (for now) still online: www.pressregister.com/editorial-se... - ThreadSky

baddog64.bsky.social•4 days ago

Can no longer trust any form of government in the failing USA.

reply

leskatspr.bsky.social•4 days ago

failed

reply

baddog64.bsky.social•4 days ago

😀

reply

stjbs.bsky.social•4 days ago

They've removed it, it looks like.

reply

alwaysimprov.bsky.social•3 days ago

It's gone. I got a "page not found."

reply

rismith.bsky.social•4 days ago

In the event it goes down, it's been archived here: https://archive.is/PqZdk

reply

jon.camp•3 days ago

The Streisand effect, alive and well.

https://web.archive.org/web/20250219152923/https://www.pressregister.com/editorial-secrecy-deception-erode-public-trust

reply

politicshealth.bsky.social•4 days ago

Here’s what’s at that link now.

reply

dappergander.bsky.social•4 days ago

Bad news

reply

zacseder.bsky.social•3 days ago

Here's what comes up at the link you provided for "the editorial, questioning why the city didn't notify the media about a special meeting to pursue a tax increase."

reply

321asymptote.bsky.social•3 days ago

📌

reply

vicknfl.bsky.social•4 days ago

They took it down.

reply

debjm45.bsky.social•4 days ago

Unbelievable. There is no malice or defamation, in the opinion. How can this stand in the court?

reply

pickle8.bsky.social•3 days ago

It's gone.

reply

seasouthern.bsky.social•4 days ago

I checked and it has been archived.

reply

zzorgon.bsky.social•3 days ago

Just got a 404. Hope someone saved it so others might read and share.

reply

publicrecdsource.bsky.social•4 days ago

The Editorial is WRONG mind you - nothing in that graf is true it's all assumed and widely disproven as a theory of change - but they have a right to be wrong about stuff in print.

reply

votenanocratic.bsky.social•4 days ago

My favorite part of this might be that the online article has three comments, and they're all work-at-home, get-rich-quick schemes.

reply

darthd00bius.bsky.social•4 days ago

Within the last few minutes the editorial has disappeared. All thanks to a judge who is either crooked or incompetent.

reply

cellarette.bsky.social•4 days ago

"Stumped their toe?"

reply

roncline33.bsky.social•4 days ago

I'm hoping that was a last-second spellcheck...

reply

cellarette.bsky.social•4 days ago

And there's only one toe. 🙃

reply

dcnats.bsky.social•3 days ago

The whole article is horrible. Absolutely should be protected by first amendment but AI could’ve written it better.

reply

cellarette.bsky.social•3 days ago

It's an editorial from a small community weekly in Miss.

At least they're afflicting the comfortable and comforting the afflicted.

reply

awokefolk.bsky.social•4 days ago

They also said "kick-back" when push back or feedback would have been better choices. Kickback implies corruption. Just sloppy editing.

reply

gordonvincent.bsky.social•3 days ago

The applicable use of "kick-back" I've encountered was in the owner's manual for a chainsaw. So it's possible to use it that way, but I roll to disbelieve that the author didn't know exactly what they were implying when they used it in the editorial.

reply

cellarette.bsky.social•3 days ago

A kickback can mean a bribe.

reply

gordonvincent.bsky.social•3 days ago

Oh, yes, it certainly can.

reply

publicrecdsource.bsky.social•4 days ago

When the shovel hits too close to the boot and an intersection of the two is negotiated, often at the expense of a portion of the phalanges inhabiting the portion of said boot

reply

publicrecdsource.bsky.social•4 days ago

UNFUN FACT the guy who Jack Daniels is named for kicked a safe and died from the untreated infection caused by the insult. That was Stubbing. Stumping can lead more directly to a bleed out.

reply

publicrecdsource.bsky.social•4 days ago

Spare parts - save them for the Necromancers they can use that for a facehugger spell.

reply

cellarette.bsky.social•3 days ago

Stubbed
Stamped
Stomped

reply

tafinucane.bsky.social•3 days ago

1st amendment protects numbskulls, too

reply

cellarette.bsky.social•3 days ago

No doubt.

reply

wooble.geoffreyspear.com•4 days ago

That's a legit phrase, although less common than "stubbed".

reply

shablopligh.bsky.social•3 days ago

404 now

reply

brianlane.bsky.social•3 days ago

404 error

reply

dvdbutler.bsky.social•3 days ago

It's already gone

reply

ekrich.bsky.social•3 days ago

Should have printed it to PDF and attached it.

reply

2kindsjustice.bsky.social•4 days ago

404 not found

reply

stryder.bsky.social•3 days ago

It's already been taken down. 😡😡😡😡

reply

peacedayresistance.bsky.social•4 days ago

I oppose censorship but honestly, that writing was so bad I kinda understand how a judge might issue a TRO just to save readers the pain of having to read it.

reply

michaelakellar.bsky.social•4 days ago

I opened the story to read it, and my copy of the New Oxford Style Manual I keep in my book case caught fire.

reply

alenjay2.bsky.social•4 days ago

Be suspicious and be vigilant.
The country is being run by a FELON
‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️

reply

mcguinness.ai•3 days ago

Archive . org to the rescue:

https://web.archive.org/web/20250218160441/https://www.pressregister.com/editorial-secrecy-deception-erode-public-trust

reply

alwaysimprov.bsky.social•3 days ago

Thank you.

reply

angrypersiangardnr.bsky.social•3 days ago

It’s a 404 now

reply

grammie-q.bsky.social•3 days ago

Says error 404 page not found

reply

gregstuart.bsky.social•3 days ago

gone gone gone 404

reply

adamsteinbaugh.bsky.social•4 days ago

For one, this is the "City of Clarksdale v. Delta Press Publishing Company." The *city* is the plaintiff. But *governments* can't sue for libel. Full stop. Here's the Supreme Court in New York Times v. Sullivan:

reply

slotrak.bsky.social•3 days ago

Oh, yeah, and Roe is settled law, as is the constitutionality of vaccine mandates. Supreme Court nominees lied and lied and lied about adherence to any law but power. So, yeah. There's the law. So what?

reply

jeffreymkirk.bsky.social•4 days ago

I know it's a small town, but the fact that the city attorney apparently doesn't know even the bare _basics_ of the Sullivan holding is absurd.

If they don't know Sullivan, unfortunately it also tracks that they're not familiar with prior restraint.

reply

jagsaysstupid.bsky.social•4 days ago

And here they are in Henry v Pearson (arising IN CLARKSDALE)

https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/henry-v-collins-henry-894329797

reply

dingodog19.bsky.social•4 days ago

Maybe the goal is to overturn Sullivan

reply

pappyparki.bsky.social•4 days ago

Bingo. Thomas & Gorsuch have already stated they want a case to bring Sullivan back before the Court.

reply

poor-yorick.bsky.social•4 days ago

Uh I doubt it. The judge and the city are Dems. My guess is none of them knew what they were doing. She just signed the TRO assuming it was the safest option until the injunction hearing. It’s a bad look but I expect they will drop it.

reply

adamsteinbaugh.bsky.social•4 days ago

Nah. There are serious attempts to overturn Sullivan. This isn't one of them.

reply

dulcet-abyssal.bsky.social•4 days ago

quick question: what's the racial makeup of the people working for the city and what's the racial makeup of the people working at the newspaper?

reply

adamsteinbaugh.bsky.social•4 days ago

And that's before we even get to the prior restraint part. Prior restraints -- like a court order prohibiting speech -- are reason number one in the list of reasons why we have a First Amendment. If Walter Sobchak knows it, a lawyer should know it.

reply

cthulul.bsky.social•4 days ago

I'm staying. Finishing my coffee.

reply

demonwithglasshand.bsky.social•4 days ago

Wanna toe? I can get you a toe. Hell, I can have you a toe by this afternoon WITH nail polish.

reply

adamsteinbaugh.bsky.social•4 days ago

Walter, [exasperated]

reply

zacseder.bsky.social•3 days ago

Tho Chancery Court Judge District 4 Judge Crystal Wise Martin seems highly educated—2 BA's: Chemistry (Spelman)/Chemical Engineering (Ga. Tech)—perhaps courses at U. Mississippi School of Law (wh/conferred her JD) covered neither Prior Restraint issue nor N.Y. Times v. Sullivan.
NO MALICE INTENDED.

reply

picturethesouth.com•3 days ago

reply

mango-flava.bsky.social•4 days ago

Walter: STFU, Donny!

reply

voiddancerasu.bsky.social•4 days ago

Holy crap. I'm just an I.T. guy with a very amateur interest in law (Blame the Prenda Law stuff back in the day for lighting that fire) and even I know this is epic levels of "you can't do that."

reply

mauricevelghe.bsky.social•3 days ago

This was thee FIRST thing that popped into my head when I saw your first post.

reply

czrisher.bsky.social•3 days ago

May I impose on you to help us limn the law here, which seems more permissive than might be? "Although the prohibition against prior restraints is by no means absolute, the gagging of publication has been considered acceptable only in exceptional cases." CBS v. Davis, 510 U.S. 1315, 1317 (1994)

reply

msbellaf.bsky.social•3 days ago

Bar complaints will be coming I assume?

reply

mikepipper.bsky.social•4 days ago

YOU'RE OUTTA YOUR ELEMENT, CLARKSDALE

reply

mauricevelghe.bsky.social•3 days ago

👨‍🍳kiss

reply

adamsteinbaugh.bsky.social•4 days ago

And the editorial appears to be... true? The city itself submitted an affidavit from the clerk admitting that she just plum forgot to notify the media (as required by state law: https://law.justia.com/codes/mississippi/title-25/chapter-41/section-25-41-13/). Whoops!

reply

gojira1000.bsky.social•4 days ago

Gee, I wonder what's encouraging idiots everywhere to act like jackbooted fascists? It is a mystery!

reply

glennberman.bsky.social•4 days ago

How convenient “Oh, I forget”. By any chance is the clerk a former student of Trump university. It’s like a lesson directly from Trump “I didn’t know” It’s the first I’m hearing of it”, It’s all Biden, Obama, Schiffty Schiff …. fault.

reply

sidewalkslam.bsky.social•4 days ago

This is the most boring editorial "hey guys you didn't follow the rules and that's concerning" and the city could've replied with an editorial saying "we're so sorry, you're right, and we will not make that mistake again or here's some other thing we're doing"

A lawsuit is insane.

reply

gregstuart.bsky.social•3 days ago

but the Judge's failure looms tall ...

reply

ccole2025.bsky.social•4 days ago

Umm, what the fuck?

reply

lawtalkinguy.bsky.social•4 days ago

It's a pretty shitty editorial. The problem it sees is that money for cops might end up helping the fire department or God forbid going to children for Halloween candy.

reply

scotusplaces.bsky.social•4 days ago

I would like to talk to "City Hal" and find out what he knows about all this.

reply

adamsteinbaugh.bsky.social•4 days ago

The city resents the suggestion it was trying to hide something by calling a special meeting and not telling the media. But that's *opinion,* not a false statement of fact. And by suing over an editorial, the city's proving them right.

reply

activateamymode.bsky.social•4 days ago

It's the Streisand Effect. Really not very savvy on the city's part, but not surprising.

reply

tw33tzr4kidz.bsky.social•3 days ago

Hypothetical:

The Mayor only wears a clown nose and boots, nothing else, in public. Statement of "fact".

The Mayor must feel above the law when he does this. Opinion.

If I were to insist the first thing [I am not], we're dealing with something you can start engaging with: other conditionals.

reply

ccole2025.bsky.social•4 days ago

Adam, serious questions:

What is/are the specific "defamatory statement(s)"?

What is the evidence of "actual malice"?

reply

adamsteinbaugh.bsky.social•4 days ago

I think their beef is with the implication that they withheld information intentionally. That and the "kick-backs" line. But the facts underlying the implication are true (they did inform the media of the meeting), and the "kick-backs" line is obviously a reference to public *feedback* (not bribery)

reply

adamsteinbaugh.bsky.social•4 days ago

Here's the City celebrating their early victory on Facebook, complete with statements from the mayor and attorney. https://www.facebook.com/cityofclarksdale/posts/pfbid02FG8CQQJ13vKgQFE1iHk8afcKxtA5MpkzX9JrBAEwGWqjoFP8Mta2pKnN6WmsKPqSl

reply

jacobrodr.bsky.social•4 days ago

662.621.8164 office of the mayor and 662.621.8137 for office of the legal dept

reply

tw33tzr4kidz.bsky.social•3 days ago

Love that they thank God. Being autocrats is a Christian thing. Noted.

reply

sidewalkslam.bsky.social•4 days ago

Well this'll get to popehat eventually, but this town is in for a bad time

reply

experimental22.bsky.social•3 days ago

MAGA=NAZI

reply

jonnypants.bsky.social•3 days ago

he's a big fan of their competitor, The Clarksdale Advocate. The Clarksdale Advocate is owned by Dee Brown of The P3 Group. P3 either built or tried to build a $50M sports complex in Clarksdale, and Espy was a big proponent.
https://www.pressregister.com/news/clarksdale-sports-complex-developer-takes-aim-naysayers-fake-news

reply

ablativmeatshld.bsky.social•4 days ago

Brb off to say mean things about the city on their Facebook.

reply

lawzag.bsky.social•4 days ago

My thought on sanctions for this after a show cause would be 4 hours in person CLE for the mayor & attorney, and require for the next 180 days, Miller to display in bold at the top of every ex parte motion “𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐲 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐬𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝐞𝐱 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬”

reply

sharondon.bsky.social•4 days ago

Did the Judge even allow the Defendant to respond before issuing the TRO - this is blatantly unconstitutional.

reply

joshuahunter.bsky.social•4 days ago

I see they just turned on the speech restriction

reply

slickpoetry.bsky.social•4 days ago

The mayor acts like a TRO is not temporary.

reply

happysunshinecat.bsky.social•3 days ago

Page with editorial is down now. ☹️

reply

mick2mark.bsky.social•3 days ago

The accused(paper) didn't have it's right to face it's accuser ,it's right to defend itself,was denied it's rights to free speech itself in this matter. That's guilty in absentia(an unlawfull prosecution), breeches natural justice amongst many other things.

reply

adamsteinbaugh.bsky.social•4 days ago

Mississippi does *not* have an anti-SLAPP statute, which would require a plaintiff suing over speech to prove they have a viable case early on, limiting the defendant's legal costs. A plaintiff who loses an anti-SLAPP motion has to pay the defendant's attorneys' fees.

Mississippi should adopt one.

reply