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 terrorist 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?