Dr. Hatfill was identified as a “person of interest” in the fatal anthrax mailings following 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?