Dr. Hatfill was identified as a “person of interest” in the fatal anthrax mailings fol- lowing the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York. He sued the New York Times for defamation after a Times columnist, Kristof, wrote a series of columns, and in each column cited new evidence that suggested Hatfill was a prime suspect. Kristof noted Hatfill had access to anthrax, knew how to make it, and he had a motive. Kristof also criticized the FBI for not adequately investigating the evidence against Hatfill. Hatfill sued for defamation, saying the columns falsely alleged he engaged in terror- ist and homicidal activity and that it was defamation per se because it linked him to the anthrax mailings. The Times argued that Hatfill was a “limited purpose public figure” and was therefore required to show actual malice. Is the Times correct? Why? Solution Answer: In this case Times is correct. Under the defamation per se there are certain types of false statements which when made either orally or in print are subject to liability even if they have not caused any special harm. Any statement which can lead to criminal charge falls under the category of defamation per se. In the series of articles Kristof has actually accused Dr.Hatfill for a very serious criminal charge of being involved in act of terror. Therefore the statements made against Dr Hatfill qualifies under defamation per se where the court can assume harm to the plaintiff’s reputation without further need required for proving that harm. When analysed by using the argument of limited purpose public figure, the actual malice standards cover the statements which are related to the topics for which such individuals are considered as public figure. Dr Hatfill is a public figure as a doctor and the charges made against him were related to criminal offences made as a professional. Hence they were related to the topic for which he is considered as a public figure i.e his profession. Under the U.S law the plaintiff needs to prove the actual malice as in this case Dr Hatfill is a public figure due to his profession and its relevance in this case. Hence in this case because of his “limited purpose public figure” status Dr Hatfill will need to prove the actual malice..

1. Dr. Hatfill was identified as a “person of interest” in the fatal anthrax mailings fol- lowing the
September 11 terrorist attacks in New York. He sued the New York Times for defamation after a
Times columnist, Kristof, wrote a series of columns, and in each column cited new evidence that
suggested Hatfill was a prime suspect. Kristof noted Hatfill had access to anthrax, knew how to
make it, and he had a motive. Kristof also criticized the FBI for not adequately investigating the
evidence against Hatfill. Hatfill sued for defamation, saying the columns falsely alleged he
engaged in terror- ist and homicidal activity and that it was defamation per se because it linked
him to the anthrax mailings. The Times argued that Hatfill was a “limited purpose public figure”
and was therefore required to show actual malice. Is the Times correct? Why?
Solution
Answer: In this case Times is correct. Under the defamation per se there are certain types of false
statements which when made either orally or in print are subject to liability even if they have not
caused any special harm. Any statement which can lead to criminal charge falls under the
category of defamation per se. In the series of articles Kristof has actually accused Dr.Hatfill for
a very serious criminal charge of being involved in act of terror. Therefore the statements made
against Dr Hatfill qualifies under defamation per se where the court can assume harm to the
plaintiff’s reputation without further need required for proving that harm. When analysed by
using the argument of limited purpose public figure, the actual malice standards cover the
statements which are related to the topics for which such individuals are considered as public
figure. Dr Hatfill is a public figure as a doctor and the charges made against him were related to
criminal offences made as a professional. Hence they were related to the topic for which he is
considered as a public figure i.e his profession. Under the U.S law the plaintiff needs to prove the
actual malice as in this case Dr Hatfill is a public figure due to his profession and its relevance in
this case. Hence in this case because of his “limited purpose public figure” status Dr Hatfill will
need to prove the actual malice.