Brickbat: The Public's Right To Know Nothing

Hinds County, Mississippi, Chancery Court Judge Crystal Wise Martin ordered the Clarksdale Press Register to remove an editorial criticizing city council members for holding a meeting on possible new taxes on alcohol, marijuana, and tobacco without sending it a public notice. Martin issued a temporary restraining order against the newspaper without holding a hearing. Mayor Chuck Espy contended the editorial was potentially libelous because it implies council members broke the law, which he contends they did not do. Officials also said it could hurt their efforts to win approval for the taxes from state lawmakers. But the Mississippi Press Association and other media groups said the judge's order violates the First Amendment.

Comments

[Vernon Depner]

I'm shocked this happened in a citadel of liberal values like Mississippi.

[Fist of Etiquette]

Officials also said it could hurt their efforts to win approval for the taxes from state lawmakers.

Public notice never helps the taxer.

[Mickey Rat]

Wait, a judge can make a ruling that violates the Constitution?

Inconceivable!

[Cyto]

This is a great point. Several writers for this magazine have recently been haranguing Republicans for complaining about low level district judges issuing stays and injunctions covering the entire US government.

Their argument is "this is the constitutional system of checks and balances".

So, an obviously unconstitutional and illegal prior restraint order affecting 1 small town paper is worthy of their scorn, but complaining about obviously illegal and unconstitutional orders from low level courts that affect the entire country to the tune of tens or hundreds of billions of dollars... that is a bridge too far, and a sign of tyranny.

If real libertarians are known for anything, it is being dogmatic "principles ofmver principals" ideologues. Yet the flagship libertarian publication is more like 80/20 principals/principles.

[TJJ2000]

Maybe the public is finally getting tired of 'Gun' THEFT being the answer to everything under the sun.

[mad.casual]

I kinda want to say that there should be a non-"OMG! KONSTITUSHUNUL KRISIS!" solution considering that the other side rather literally makes it sound like "I hit 'send' rather than 'send all'." but "potentially libelous because it implies" is pretty pure "RESPEKT MAH AUTHORITAH!" draped in pointless conditionals.

OK, so it was libelous, said someone factually did something that wasn't true and needs changed, the point of contention is that it's libelous?
Well, no. It just implies a crime was committed.
Uh... OK... so more "X did Y which would normally be considered illegal." and as long as there isn't any implication that someone broke the law they can still factually report that X did Y?
Well, no. It potentially implied a crime was committed.
So "X may or may not have done Y which may or may not have been a crime, if it was done."?
Yeah.
Are you even sure what it says?