Pafford EMS demanding halt to ‘libelous’ social media posts; media law expert weighs in

By JOEL PHELPS | arkadelphian.com

With hopes of securing a contract for 911 ambulance calls in Clark County, Pafford Emergency Medical Services is taking a stand against outspoken social media users who have beef with the multi-million dollar company establishing a permanent local presence.

The question is whether citizens have overstepped their fundamental rights to freedom of speech, and a media law expert argues that no lines have been crossed.

In recent days, Pafford attorneys have mailed cease and desist letters to three local individuals who have taken to Facebook to harp on the company and its CEO, Jamie Pafford-Gresham.

One Facebook user, Jim Hancock, shared a video clip from Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory and likened the company CEO to Veruca Salt’s temper tantrum performance in “I Want It Now!” In another post, Hancock alleges that Pafford-Gresham uses wealth and Non-Disclosure Agreements as leverage to sway business decisions to ensure the company secures contracts for 911 services.

It’s the latter type of post that bothers Pafford-Gresham the most.

“The true root of my issue are the accusations that anyone that votes for Pafford must be paid off,” Pafford-Gresham told The Arkadelphian. “They continually question my operation, do not have facts, and are spouting off half-truths affecting my business. The main thing is when they pushed questioning my character [and accused me of] payoffs to public officials — I felt like that’s crossing the line because they are trying to put fear in others.”

The cease and desist letters, from Little Rock law firm Hyden, Miron & Foster, are dated June 6, 2025, and read: “It has come to our attention that you have been making false, untrue and libelous claims against Pafford Medical Services Inc. and Jamie Pafford-Gresham. Based on our investigation, it appears you have been posting libelous claims on Facebook and spreading false information against our client, doing so is causing harm and is in tortious interference with Pafford Medical Services Inc. contract with Clark County, Arkansas, to provide ambulance service to the county. There are consequences to spreading false, untrue and malicious statements.”

The letter continues with a demand to remove all posts on Facebook or any other online platform, and states the firm is poised to take further legal action should the recipients fail to comply with the demand, “including seeking all available damages and remedies.”

Another recipient of a cease and desist letter is Kim Sullivan, who also has taken her gripes with Pafford to social media. Upon receiving the letter, Sullivan fired back — again in a lengthy Facebook post decrying the CEO as a greedy narcissist, adding that, “as citizens should we have to worry about when we complain [about a] company that we could lose everything we’ve worked for to a sue-happy company? I’ve put nothing but truth here on Facebook about this subpar company, and now I’m being threatened by one of the richest women in the state. Honestly what would you do?”

Although Michael Ray Taylor hasn’t kept abreast of the issue or researched the players with cards on the table, he has an answer for Sullivan, Hancock and anyone else who’s received a letter: “Make sure you’re posting truth, and continue to post,” he said in a sit-down interview with The Arkadelphian.

Taylor is professor emeritus of communication at Henderson State University, where for 30 years he taught media law. Taylor reviewed the Facebook posts by Hancock and Sullivan, and found no libelous statements had been made.

“Social media users should understand that all Americans are protected by the First Amendment, period, when it comes to free speech — especially on matters of public interest. It doesn’t matter if the comments are made on Facebook, in town meetings, or tacked to telephone poles.”

Without a strong case for libel, Taylor argues that the cease and desist letters are an attempt at unconstitutional censorship, something the U.S. Supreme Court refers to as prior restraint.

Having recently unfurled the saga of a mountaintop housing development proposed above an abandoned coal mine in eastern Tennessee, Taylor is more than familiar with the topic of wealthy companies hushing whistleblowers. In the Aetna Mountain case, the developer filed libel suits against two citizens for comments made slighting the wealthy developer — both on social media and in public meetings. A judge in the case ultimately tossed the lawsuit and ordered the development company to pay the defendants’ legal fees, thanks to anti-SLAPP statutes protecting privileged communications and the performance of acts in furtherance of the right to free speech.

Pafford said, “I want to be clear: I’m about freedom of speech, but what I’m not about is the harassment, the bullying, the mean videos … They’re accusing me of putting fear in them when actually that’s not what’s going on here. They’re putting fear in others.”

Taylor sees a parallel between the Tennessee case and the cease and desist letters Pafford’s attorneys sent to those harping on the company and its CEO. The libel suit in Tennessee was based in part on Facebook comments that were not libelous. The criticisms made by citizens in both cases are fair, Taylor argues, especially considering the public interest and regardless of whether a company loses out on a contract.

“In terms of interfering with a contract, if it can be proven in court there was no [underhanded] deal made and can provide evidence of that, then they may be able to sue later for libel,” Taylor said. “But they can’t issue a cease and desist order now, because that is prior restraint of free speech. You can’t do that.”

Ambulance services, he contends, are most certainly matters of public interest. “An ambulance driver has a power over life and death of the citizens,” he said. “The public absolutely has a right [to free speech] in the pursuit of these contracts and the municipal agencies like Clark County who run contract negotiations should make every effort to make this selection process transparent and to make public commentary and contribution to that selection process.”

Asked to what extent Pafford — a company with a presence in four states — is subject to public criticism, Taylor said, “More so than other companies, because there’s this long history of very wealthy companies seeking public contracts and suing local residents to shut them up when they criticize them. That’s why the anti-SLAPP law was created by the Arkansas legislature and is on the books today. I would encourage anyone who is threatened with legal action for speaking their mind about a public contract to look at that law and find a First Amendment lawyer willing to take their case.”

Taylor concluded: “I know with good certainty that there is no constitutional basis for these cease and desist orders, and I congratulate the people who received them, and I hope they keep speaking up.”