By: The Associated Press and E&P Staff A federal judge this week affirmed a magistrate's order that The New York Times disclose a columnist's confidential sources as part of a libel lawsuit filed over the newspaper's coverage of the 2001 anthrax attacks.
Former Army scientist Steven Hatfill alleges that a series of articles by columnist Nicholas Kristof falsely implicated him in the anthrax mailings that killed five people in late 2001. He is suing the Times for libel.
In a ruling made public Oct. 23, U.S. Magistrate Judge Liam O'Grady ordered the newspaper to disclose the identities of three of Kristof's sources. The Times appealed and U.S. District Court Judge Claude M. Hilton ruled Tuesday that O'Grady's order was not clearly erroneous or contrary to the law.
O'Grady said Virginia law gives reporters only limited immunity from disclosing sources and that privilege is outweighed by Hatfill's right to proceed with his lawsuit.
Hatfill's lawyers want to question the sources to determine if Kristof's reporting was accurate. Two FBI sources allegedly told the Times that Hatfill was one of a limited number of people with the access and technical expertise to manufacture the anthrax and that he failed several lie-detector tests.
Hatfill was a physician and bioterrorism expert who worked at the Army's infectious disease laboratory at Fort Detrick, Md., in the late 1990s.
The Department of Justice refuses to discuss Hatfill, but has recently acknowledged that the strain of anthrax used in the attacks was accessible to a much wider circle of people than initially reported.
The New York Sun first disclosed the ruling today. Kristof told the Sun that while he has been told that he is highly unlikely that he will wind up in jail, he is very concerned about the message and impact of the rulings.
The Times reports Friday: "The ruling is likely to make it more difficult for The Times to defend the lawsuit when the case goes to trial because a judge may instruct the jury to give less credibility to assertions that the columns had been based on legitimate and knowledgeable sources. Because it is a civil case rather than a criminal one, there is little chance of anyone from The Times facing the possibility of being jailed over contempt charges."
George Freeman, vice president and assistant general counsel for The Times, told the paper the ruling was disappointing, ?given that the court recognized that confidential sources play an important role in good journalism, and that the court of appeals came very close to dismissing this case on a preliminary motion on the basis that the columns weren?t defamatory....
?Though it may make defending the case tougher,? Mr. Freeman added, ?we are confident that in the end, the columns will be vindicated.?
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here