>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.
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.
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.