NY Times Sued for Libel

JaJae · 10-24-2006, 12:34 AM

I'm not a fan of the NY Times. That's no secret. But this makes for an interesting discussion.

New York Times Columnist Must Reveal Sources, Judge Rules - washingtonpost.com

Apparently an editorial writer on the NY Times payroll made a series of columns claiming a military scientist was likely responsible for the anthrax we had going around after Sept 11.

Basically the claim is that Kristof wanted to find the anthrax mailer. He was trying to be patriotic when he singled someone out, whether or not there was any evidence to do so and assigned guilt. Just to get the ball rolling and the Feds more engaged in the case. Hatfill claims he knew Kristof on a personal level and that Kristof has always been very hostile towards him.

May 24th started the first of Kristof's columns. He had not yet identified the person he was accusing. But built up the story. July 2nd, he claimed the Anthrax mailer was "Mr. Z" to which he gave the person's entire autobiography. It was easily recognizable as Hatfill being he was from South Africa and his political views and current events. Finally in August, Kristof named Mr. Z as Hatfill. The columns were written in such a way as to impute guilt to Hatfill.

Hatfill also claims these items in Kristof's columns are false and some are defamatory:

a) the assertion that Dr. Hatfill "unquestionably had the ability to make first-rate anthrax."

b) the assertion that Dr. Hatfill had the "ability" to send the anthrax.

c) the assertion that Dr. Hatfill had the "access" required to send the anthrax.

d) the assertion that Dr. Hatfill had a "motive" to send the anthrax.

e) the assertion that Dr. Hatfill was one of a "handful" of individuals who had the "ability, access and motive to send the anthrax."

f) the assertion that Dr. Hatfill "had access" to an "isolated residence" in the fall of 2001, when the anthrax letters were sent.

g) the assertion that Dr. Hatfill "gave Cipro [an antibiotic famously used in the treatment of anthrax infection] to people who visited [the 'isolated residence']."

h) the assertion that Dr. Hatfill's anthrax vaccinations were "up to date" as of May 24, 2002.

i) the assertion that Dr. Hatfill "failed 3 successive polygraph examinations" between January 2002 and August 13, 2002.

j) the assertion that Dr. Hatfill "was upset at the United States government in the period preceding the anthrax attack."

k) the assertion that Dr. Hatfill "was once caught with a girlfriend in a biohazard 'hot suite' at Fort Detrick [where Dr. Hatfill had concededly worked] surrounded only by blushing germs."

Hatfill sent a letter to the NY Times to counter the accusations that had been thrown out against him for half a year by one of their employees. But, the NY Times refused to run it.

At no time during the accusations were printed did Kristof contact Hatfill or ask for his input. Because of Kristof's column's Hatfill has lost his job. He has been cleared of any wrong-doing, but is now in financial difficulty which he blames the NY Times for by running this false defamatory columns without letting him respond.

Here's where it starts to get interesting. The judge has ordered Kristof and the NY Times to produce the sources. They are again refusing.

What does everyone think of this? Freedom of the press? If a NY Times writer has it out for someone can they slander them and essentially ruin their reputation, get them fired from their job, and put them in financial strains without any protections from the law? Or should they have to produce whatever sources Kristof claims to have had to which gave him proof that Hatfill was the anthrax mailer and he is innocent of libel?

I say, if Kristof refuses to pull his source he should be considered guilty of libel. There's too much evidence against him. He shouldn't be able to hide on this. Kristof and the NY Times went too far on this one.

JaJae · 10-24-2006, 12:36 AM

Some court documents:
Hatfill vs Kristof & The New York Times

Kytro · 10-24-2006, 01:20 AM

I think it is reasonable for a judge to review the sources to determine if they were based in fact.

JaJae · 10-24-2006, 01:34 AM

Originally Posted by Kytro

I think it is reasonable for a judge to review the sources to determine if they were based in fact.

I agree. And if he doesn't produce he's liable for whatever evidence can be brought against him. It sucks, but if it can be proven that he had an agenda against him and absolutely no evidence to back his slanderous claims he should be guilty of something in my opinion. The NY Times and/or Kristof shouldn't have a clean slate to ruin anyone's life as they see fit.

This makes for an interesting case. I heard about it on the local radio station as a news blurb. They just said NY Times sued for libel over anthrax mailings. I had to look it up myself and there really wasn't much at all about this issue. Only Washington Post had picked it up at this point. No surprise being if someone picked it up it would be a conservative paper. I'm willing to bet if this were Fox News in a similar situation it would be all over the place.

Kytro · 10-24-2006, 01:58 AM

Originally Posted by JaJae

I agree. And if he doesn't produce he's liable for whatever evidence can be brought against him. It sucks, but if it can be proven that he had an agenda against him and absolutely no evidence to back his slanderous claims he should be guilty of something in my opinion. The NY Times and/or Kristof shouldn't have a clean slate to ruin anyone's life as they see fit.

The media has an important role and it shouldn't abuse that. However, the information should be only for the judge to look at, not joe bloggs.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 10-24-2006, 02:41 AM

I dunno, but it's kind of freaky they never caught the anthrax mailer.

Kytro · 10-24-2006, 02:54 AM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

I dunno, but it's kind of freaky they never caught the anthrax mailer.

Not really. If people are clever enough they can hide the evidence to the point it becomes impossible to verify.

Say I created a super computer worm somehow that would infect nearly all computers on the internet and then wipe them.

If I went overseas or simply a different city to a public internet space with access to a usb device to release it it would be all but impossible to track me down.