In Mississippi, a shocking case of censorship. Plus, the AP ponders a lawsuit, and good news in Texas

In 1971, after a federal court stopped The New York Times from publishing the Pentagon Papers, the government’s secret history of the Vietnam War, the Supreme Court was so alarmed at that naked act of censorship that it took up the case in a matter of weeks. On a 6-3 vote, the court ruled that the Times, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe and others could resume publishing, though they might face prosecution for revealing classified information. (They didn’t.)

In 1979, after a small magazine in Wisconsin called The Progressive said it intended to publish an article revealing some details about how to manufacture an atomic bomb, a federal judge stepped in and said no — but so agonized over his censorious act that he all but begged the magazine and the government to reach a compromise.

Become a supporter of Media Nation. For $5 a month you’ll receive a monthly newsletter with exclusive content, a roundup of the week’s posts, photography and music.

Then there’s Judge Crystal Wise Martin of Mississippi. On Wednesday, Martin issued a temporary restraining order requiring The Clarksdale Press Register to take down an editorial from its website. According to Andrew DeMillo of The Associated Press, the editorial, headlined “Secrecy, Deception Erode Public Trust,” took city officials to task “for not sending the newspaper notice about a meeting the City Council held regarding a proposed tax on alcohol, marijuana and tobacco.”

The city had sued the Press Register, claiming that the editorial was libelous and that it “chilled and hindered” the council’s work. Mayor Chuck Espy was quoted in the AP story as saying the editorial had unfairly implied that officials had violated the law. He cited a section of the editorial that asked, “Have commissioners or the mayor gotten kick-back [see update below] from the community?”

But libel is not on the very short list of offenses for which the press may be subjected to prior restraint. Those who believe they’ve been falsely defamed may sue after the fact (although governments themselves can’t sue), but they can’t go running to court and demand that allegedly libelous material be taken down. Except in Judge Martin’s courtroom, apparently.

Seth Stern, director of advocacy for the Freedom of the Press Foundation, issued a statement that begins:

It’s hard to imagine a more unconstitutional order than one compelling a newspaper to take down an editorial critical of the government. And it’s particularly ironic when the editorial in question is about government secrecy undermining the public trust. If anyone previously trusted the secretive officials involved in this censorship campaign, they shouldn’t now.

Wyatt Emmerich, president of the paper’s parent company, told the AP that he plans to fight. For now, though, the editorial has disappeared from the Press Register’s website.

Nor is this the only threat to free speech playing out in Mississippi. The nonprofit news organization Mississippi Today is fighting a judge’s order that it turn over internal documents sought by former Gov. Phil Bryant, who is suing Today for libel over its Pulitzer Prize-winning investigation into a state welfare scandal.

Speaking of lawsuits

Although it hasn’t happened yet, the AP is continuing to ponder the possibility of suing the Trump administration. The White House has banned the AP from several events because the news organization has continued to refer to the Gulf of Mexico by its proper name rather than the Trump-approved “Gulf of America” designation.

Media reporter Oliver Darcy reports that AP executive editor Julie Pace met with White House chief of staff Susie Wiles on Wednesday in an attempt to come to some sort of agreement — but none appears to be forthcoming. Darcy writes:

Short of the AP surrendering on this front, which it has made clear it will not do, it is very hard to imagine that Trump will back down and let the organization back into its events. The only mechanism the AP seems to have at its disposal to regain access is through legal action. The AP has signaled it may take such action, but it has yet to do so.

Darcy also reveals that more than 40 news organizations have written a confidential letter protesting the AP’s exclusion, including not just mainstream outlets like CNN, the three major networks, NPR, The Washington Post and The Guardian but also pro-Trump organs like Fox News and Newsmax. The New York Times and Reuters have protested as well. But Darcy writes that, for the moment, the White House Correspondents’ Association, the non-governmental organization that is supposed to control access, is continuing to try to resolve the dispute quietly, which is why it might seem like the media are doing little to support the AP.

I’ve seen numerous references to the possibility of a lawsuit by the AP, but what would be the basis? I’m guessing that the agency would argue that the White House may exclude certain news organizations only for reasons that are not related to content. By banning the AP because it doesn’t like its editorial decisions, the Trump administration may be violating the First Amendment.

Gannett exits Austin

Good news in the Lone Star State, where Gannett, the country’s largest newspaper chain, has agreed to sell the Austin American-Statesman to Hearst. Unlike the cost-slashing Gannett, Hearst is privately owned, and I’d give the company generally high marks for the way it runs some of its other newspaper clusters — including Connecticut, where it owns the New Haven Register, the Connecticut Post of Bridgeport and a number of smaller daily and weekly papers.

“This acquisition complements Hearst’s set of newspapers and reinforces our commitment to delivering high-quality journalism,” said Hearst Newspapers president Jeff Johnson in a press release. “It aligns with our strategy to invest in thriving communities with strong potential. We look forward to welcoming the Austin American-Statesman team to Hearst, joining 2,300 committed Hearst Newspapers professionals across the country.”

Hearst already owns a number of papers in Texas, anchored by the Houston Chronicle and including titles such as the San Antonio Express-News and The Beaumont Enterprise.

Update, Feb. 27: The Associated Press originally reported that the editorial said, “Have commissioners or the mayor gotten kick-backs from the community?” A follow-up by the AP says that the actual word was “kick-back,” singular, and that the Clarksdale Press Register’s president, Wyatt Emmerich, claims that it should be understood as “push-back.” Judge Martin has reversed her order. I’ve changed “kick-backs” to “kick-back” above, and I’ll be posting an update explaining all this in the near future.