Even if he proves libel, he still could get life in prison

On Feb. 18, 2009, The Early Show on CBS aired a story of a Muslim woman being decapitated by her husband. Aasiya Hassan was found murdered at the television station she and her husband, Muzzammil Hassan started in2004. The irony of the crime is that the Islam television station that the couple started together was to create a more positive and less violent image of Muslims in America.

This story was release a few days after the killing occurred. I had to read this story twice to decide if Hassan had a chance to win a libel case. I understand that he is a suspected murderer, but some of the quotes from experts used by the reporter in the article could be considered damaging.

The district attorney, Frank Sedita III, said, “He's a pretty vicious and remorseless bastard."

Another expert, Dr. Phyllis Chesler, a psychology professor at Richmond University, said, "Leaving the body parts displayed the way he did, like a terrorist would do, that's very peculiar, it's very public," Chesler said. "He wanted to show that even though his business venture may have been failing, that he was in control of his wife"

I went over the criteria that a person must prove to win a libel case. The first thing I had to determine was whether Hassan was a public figure. If so, he would have to prove actual malice. Before he decapitated his wife, I would have considered him a private citizen, but after doing such a gruesome act, I think he became a public figure. That is going to make it hard for him to win a libel case, but he might be able to so we will go on to the next step.

The story must be published. That is easy to prove, the story was published on Feb. 18, 2009.

The story must be defamatory. His action was terrible, but defamation is a bit harder to prove. He would have a small chance to be able to prove that using “terrorist” to describe the way he killed his wife could be consider defamatory. I think the expert is just comparing his action to that of a terrorist, so I do not think he would have a strong case for defamation. He did have a strong case for defamation when the attorney general called him a remorseless bastard, though.

Injury is next, the story definitely causes injury to him and his television station. The station will lose a lot of money and his reputation has been permanently damaged.

The last thing that has to proven is fault, was the newspaper at fault for harming this man’s reputation. The newspaper was not printing the story to intentionally hurt this man. The story was just giving the people the facts of the story.

Yes, the expert’s opinion did use the word terrorist, which is a touchy world in today’s society, but they did not directly call Hassan a terrorist. The attorney general needs to watch out though, calling someone a vicious and remorseless bastard might land him in some hot water.

After going over the article, I do not think that the article would be proven libelous, but it is up to the courts to decide. Hassan would not have a case citing Chesler’s quote as libel, but the printed quote by the attorney general might win even if it is just the lawyer’s opinion.