Judge Gives Rationale for Tossing Hatfill Suit Against Times

The New York Sun ^ | 2 February 2007 | Josh Gerstein

[Khan Noonian Singh]

A former Army scientist's work and his public advocacy for bioterrorism defense led to the dismissal of his libel suit charging the New York Times with publishing columns unfairly linking him to the 2001 anthrax attacks.

In a 28-page opinion released yesterday, Judge Claude Hilton of Alexandria, Va., concluded that the scientist, Steven Hatfill, was a public official and a public figure. Those findings set a high bar for Mr. Hatfill's suit, requiring him to present evidence that the author of the columns, Nicholas Kristof, knew that the columns were false or had strong reason to think they were untrue. Judge Hilton said he dismissed the case last month before trial because there was no way Mr. Hatfill could make such a showing.

[Khan Noonian Singh]

Excerpting reqd for NY Sun. Article at link.

[JerseyJohn61]

Ping and sorry to those I haven't listed....JJ61

[JerseyJohn61]

It's recusal time for this Judge as the law suit will
probably bounce back.

I think this Judge is reacting to pressure instead of
acting upon the law....JJ61

[MindBender26]

I hate the Slimes, but the judge is absolutely right on law.

[americafirst]

Hatfill was about as much of a public figure as you are. Of course, once they wrote about him, he became a public figure. So if this stands, we're all screwed.

[Battle Axe]

anthrax ping

let me know if you want on or off the anthrax ping list. I won't put you on it unless you tell me specifically.

[MindBender26]

>Hatfill was about as much of a public figure as you are. Of course, once they wrote about him, he became a public figure. So if this stands, we're all screwed.

Actually, no.

The issue of being a Public Figure is very much driven, not so much by the actions of others, force majeure, etc, but by the actions of the supposed Public Figure.

His earlier work, before the anthrax incident, clearly puts him into this category.

[Peach]

They really ruined Hatfill and now won't own up to it, thanks to a helpful judge.

[Battle Axe]

Their definition of public figure makes me one too. Now I won't have to get Patty Duke to play me in the movie....I can play myself!!!!!

[Peach]

LOL. It's a ludicrous claim they made -- that Hatfield was a public figure. Only after he was erroneously fingered as the source of the anthrax.

[americafirst]

I'm a non-practicing JD like you but am disagreeing more from common sense than the law (when the law is on their side, pound the facts; when the facts are on their side, pound the law; when both are on their side, pound the table!). I would think that this is a gray area but publishing articles and attending conferences hardly makes one a public figure. It would seem that most professionals would then be considered public figures and this would give the press far too wide a berth in their protections.

[Peach]

Off topic:

Imam leads Democrats in prayer of conversion. Read the whole thing. Although it's WND, Robert Spencer has serious credentials.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1778488/posts

We have soldiers being killed by jihadists in Iraq, and the Democrats are being led in "prayer" by an Imam.

[EdLake]

It's recusal time for this Judge as the law suit will probably bounce back.

I agree. The law says that Dr. Hatfill would have become a "public figure" if he had injected himself into a public debate or controversy.

All Dr. Hatfill did was say that America wasn't sufficiently protected against a bioweapons attack.

Where's the debate? Where's the controversy? Who was saying that America IS sufficiently protected against a bioweapons attack?

Don't you need to have two sides in order to have a debate or controversy?

Or does one automatically become a "public figure" by answering questions from the media? Or does one automatically become a "public figure" by just being an expert in some area? I don't think that is what the law says OR what the law intended.

Also, Judge Hilton constantly uses things about Dr. Hatfill from AFTER Kristof began printing his columns to support the argument that Hatfill was a public figure AND/OR that Kristof was right in urging the FBI to investigate Hatfill.

It seems to me that anything that happened AFTER Kristof began printing his columns cannot be used to argue that Dr. Hatfill was a public figure BEFORE Kristof began printing his columns.

Hatfill's lawyers are saying they will appeal. If the case goes back to Judge Hilton, they should object and ask that he recuse himself.

BTW, Dr. Hatfill's lawsuit against Don Foster et all is in the final stages of a settlement agreement. The agreement is expected on or before February 20.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

[EdLake]

I would think that this is a gray area but publishing articles and attending conferences hardly makes one a public figure.

I agree. How can the judge justify calling Dr. Hatfill a "public figure" because Dr. Hatfill wrote an UNPUBLISHED novel? Is the desire for fame the same as being famous? Wouldn't that make just about everyone famous?

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

[FairOpinion]

"was a public official and a public figure"


This is preposterous. He became a public figure as a result of the high profile, unjust accusations.

[MindBender26]

I pound the table a lot.....

:~)

I think there is a "desire for enrichment or enurement" issue here. Did he seek publicity for gain or did it come to him as a result of an action not designed to create personal benefit.

Joe Smith runs for dogcatcher in East Washboard Township, Vermont. He makes public speeches saying "Elect Me." He is seen by a total of 400 people. He is a Public Figure.

Air Florida flight 90 crashes into the Potomac River, Jan 13, 1982. Lenny Skutnik, who works as a clerk at the Congressional Budget Office, sees it happen and jumps into the ice filled river to rescue a stewardess. He is seen by 40,000,000 people live on TV. Reagan introduces him at the SOTU speech, again on international TV.

Lenny never makes a dime on it, no speeches, no Movie of the Week deal, etc. I would argue that he is not a Public Figure.

[MindBender26]

PS, I also agree that the current definition of a Public Figure is way too wide.

[JerseyJohn61]

Ping for Muawiyah.

Battle, I wish to be on that Ping list if you would. Thanks.

....JJ61

[jpl]

His earlier work, before the anthrax incident, clearly puts him into this category.

Get real. You had ever heard of the guy before 2002, and neither had 99.9% of us. I guarantee that this goofy judge had never heard of him before either.

Under this absurd interpretation, any person who writes a letter to the editor of a newspaper and gets the letter published is a "public figure". The same thing would probably apply to anyone with a blog, even if the blog is read by all of 50 people.

[MindBender26]

"Curse neither the law, nor the gods, nor the wind."

Sorry, but under the law, in order to keep our strong heritage of free speech and public accountability alive, the issue of being a public figure is necessarily broad.

>You had (n)ever heard of the guy before 2002, and neither had 99.9% of us. I guarantee that this goofy judge had never heard of him before either.

Yes, but many chemists and scientists had, and they had, not because of what was "done to him," but because he had sought publicity, recognition, etc.

For example, I have no doubt that JR is a public person, not so much because he established FR, but because of use of FR's notoriety to fund raise for it, etc.

His doing so was a good and very smart thing. It gave Conservatives a voice, a method of communication, the ability to organize to petition the government, exercise our rights to speak, write and publish, and to give meaning and actionability to many other Constitutional rights.

Being a public person is not a bad thing. It is simply the price of using other liberties, other freedoms to our advantage.