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.