Posted on 03/27/2006 8:07:55 PM PST by LdSentinal
WASHINGTON (AP) The Supreme Court refused Monday to block a defamation lawsuit against The New York Times over columns that linked a former Army scientist to the 2001 anthrax killings.
Authorities have never solved the mysterious mailing of anthrax-laced letters that killed five people and sickened 17 not long after the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks.
Steven Hatfill, a physician and bioterrorism expert, was labeled a "person of interest" by then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, although he was never charged and has since sued Ashcroft and others.
A federal judge had thrown out Hatfill's lawsuit against The New York Times over 2002 columns by writer Nicholas Kristof that faulted the FBI for failing to thoroughly investigate Hatfill. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the suit, and the Supreme Court declined without comment to take up the case.
Times lawyer David Schulz of New York said the appeals court decision undermines free speech protections for reporters and invites more lawsuits over legitimate news reporting.
The Associated Press and some 30 other news organizations urged the court to use the case to clarify reporters' free-speech protections.
"Reporting on government investigations is critical to the public's ability to evaluate how their elected and appointed officials are executing the responsibility of enforcing the laws and protecting the peace," Washington lawyers Paul M. Smith wrote in the groups' filing.
Hatfill's attorney, Christopher Wright, said that the reporting by Kristof was reckless, with multiple errors, including the claim that Hatfill had failed three polygraph tests.
The Supreme Court itself was touched by the anthrax scare. Traces of anthrax were found in the court's mailroom, forcing the building's closure for a week in October 2001.
Hatfill had sued in federal court in Alexandria, Va., in 2004, claiming defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In its ruling, the appeals court said that the newspaper columns, taken as a whole, might be considered defamatory.
One of the dissenting judges said that The New York Times appeared only to be trying to reveal flaws in the FBI investigation, not to accuse Hatfill of the murders.
The case is The New York Times v. Hatfill, 05-897.
Go to it!
"One of the dissenting judges said that The New York Times appeared only to be trying to reveal flaws in the FBI investigation, not to accuse Hatfill of the murders."
The "flaw" being the FBI's then failure to chase Hatfill! LOL.
But...but the NYT is above the law! This is a form of censorship! You can't expect the NYT to actually print facts! Fascists!!!!
BTTT
Well, that appears to be the basis of the suit, Mr. Schulz--that the NYT doesn't engage in legitimate news reporting.
What if you accuse it of telling the truth or being American?
Nor will they ever, at this juncture, at least not in a fashion which could be made public...
the infowarrior
They would all jump off the top floor.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.