Springfield Daily Citizen Hides Article After Criticism, Responds with Legal Threats

Susan Wade commented on my article by threatening legal action. Does she have legal grounds to do so? Or is this an attempt to intimidate?

The Springfield Daily Citizen, an online publication, has made an unusual move by hiding Susan Wade's December 12th article about Mary Hernandez de Carl's appointment to the Christian County Library Board. The article, published late Thursday evening, is no longer accessible to regular readers attempting to view it on their website.

This isn't standard journalistic practice. Current news stories, particularly those about ongoing community issues, typically remain accessible. The decision to archive and hide this article within approximately 72 hours of publication raises serious questions about its content and accuracy.

Let's look at the timeline:

• Thursday, December 12th (late evening): Wade publishes her article about the Library Board appointment

• Friday, December 13th: Multiple community members point out factual errors and problematic reporting

• Sunday, December 15th: Article becomes inaccessible behind an archive wall

• Sunday evening: Wade responds with legal threats instead of addressing the accuracy concerns

When confronted with documented criticism of her reporting, Wade chose to respond with legal threats:

"Posting an entire article from another publication as you have done in this blog post is copyright infringement, which can carry significant criminal and civil penalties."

She added allegations about "factual errors and defamatory statements" but notably failed to specify what these might be.

My response maintained professional standards while challenging her to substantiate her claims:

"My article falls under fair use doctrine as it provides criticism and analysis of your reporting, with full attribution and documentation. Each claim made is supported by evidence, including screenshots, videos, and primary sources. If you believe there are specific factual errors in my piece, I welcome you to point them out with supporting evidence, and I will gladly review and correct any demonstrated inaccuracies."

The Springfield Daily Citizen's decision to hide the article while their reporter makes vague legal threats instead of addressing specific factual concerns should trouble anyone interested in transparent local journalism. This pattern—publishing without proper verification, hiding content when challenged, and responding with legal threats rather than corrections—raises serious questions about their commitment to accurate community reporting.

A simple Google search now shows the article as “Archived.” The Substack article about Wade’s reporting falls right below it, then you can see Ms. Wade’s Facebook post seeking information about Hernandez de Carl in the fourth result. Fifth result is my Podcast about Springfield Daily Citizen. The speed with which they've hidden this content, combined with their unwillingness to address specific criticisms, suggests they may be more interested in controlling the narrative than ensuring accurate reporting.

I will show receipts and screenshots. I’m not attacking Mrs. Wade the person. I am speaking against her actions as journalist and against the editors at Springfield Daily Citizen. This is fair and justified criticism that doesn’t fall into ad hominem attacks.

If the Springfield Daily Citizen believes in transparency and accountability, they should:

1. Make the original article accessible again

2. Address specific factual concerns

3. Issue corrections where necessary

4. Explain why they chose to hide current news from their readers

Instead, they've opted for legal threats and content removal. That's not journalism - that's damage control.

Want to read the original article and judge for yourself? Sorry, you can't. The Springfield Daily Citizen has made sure of that.

Given the legal threats recieved in a comment from Mrs. Wade (a cease-and-desist letter would be most appropriate from a lawyer which may still be forthcoming), it is appropriate to discuss the legal reprecussions of any possible copyright violations or possible Libel against Mrs. Wade.

Legal Questions

I’m not a legal expert, but when I do have legal questions, I refer to a legal AI to help answer questions. To be transparent, as I attempt to be, I wanted to share the AI results with the reader. After I wrote the article on Wade, I ran it through this AI to ask questions about defamation to make sure I was working within protected speech. It corrected areas of concern, though there weren’t many, and I eliminated any areas of concern.

After the legal threats she made tonight in the comment on my original article, I asked Claude.AI again. While the AI is not a lawyer, and I will contact some resources tomorrow, here are the answers I recieved and I’m sharing them with you.

Note on Fair Use

The screenshots and quotes from Wade's article are shared under Fair Use doctrine (Section 107 of the Copyright Act) for purposes of criticism, commentary, and analysis. This sharing is protected by law as it provides necessary context for critiquing journalistic practices, allows readers to verify claims, and supports detailed analysis of reporting standards. The complete preservation of the original content is particularly relevant given that the Springfield Daily Citizen has now archived the article from public view. This use falls squarely within fair use protection as it serves the public interest, provides context for media criticism, and includes substantial original commentary and analysis.

Regarding defamation claims

This article contains factual criticism of journalistic practices supported by evidence including screenshots, videos, and primary source documentation. Each claim made about Wade's reporting methods and editorial decisions is backed by specific examples and focuses solely on professional conduct, not personal attacks. Truth is an absolute defense against defamation under Missouri law, and criticism of journalistic practices on matters of public interest is protected speech. All statements in this article are either demonstrably true, clearly labeled opinion, or supported by documented evidence available for reader verification.