Navy veteran’s defamation suit against CNN inches towards trial as judge hears motions for summary judgment
U.S. Navy veteran Zachary Young alleges that CNN smeared him by implying he illegally profited when helping people flee Afghanistan during the U.S. withdrawal.
U.S. Navy veteran Zachary Young’s high-stakes defamation lawsuit against CNN continued to move forward on Wednesday when a judge heard multiple motions for summary judgment.
Young alleges that CNN smeared him and his security consulting company, Nemex Enterprises Inc., by implying it illegally profited when helping people flee Afghanistan during the Biden administration's military withdrawal from the country in 2021. Young believes CNN "destroyed his reputation and business by branding him an illegal profiteer who exploited desperate Afghans" during a Nov. 11, 2021, segment on CNN’s "The Lead with Jake Tapper."
Judge William S. Henry previously ruled that Young "did not act illegally or criminally" despite what the network reported on air. Judge Henry also said CNN citing Sharia law to defend the notion that Young acted illegally, is "a bridge too far." As a result, the jury will be instructed to assume Young did nothing against the law.
CNN FACES DEFAMATION SUIT OVER AFGHANISTAN WITHDRAWAL STORY: 'EVIDENCE OF ACTUAL MALICE'
During the hours-long hearing on Wednesday, Judge Henry heard other arguments related to the remaining motions for summary judgment. CNN’s legal team again cited the Taliban’s Sharia law to imply Young operated on the "black market," because the "brutal regime" restricted the movement of women when the Navy veteran tried to help them escape.
CNN’s legal team repeatedly said it was simply "journalists committing journalism" and the two sides bickered over whether Young is a public figure, along with a variety of other issues.
During the marathon hearing, CNN spent significant time arguing that punitive damages shouldn’t be on the table. Young’s attorney, Vel Freedman, urged the court to find that Young never took money from an Afghan citizen.
"CNN can’t point to any evidence… there can’t be any evidence because it didn’t happen," Freedman told the judge.
CNN’s attorney argued that the segment made it clear Afghans needed a sponsor to cover the cost despite on-screen chyrons declaring they "face black market, exorbitant fees."
Judge Young told both parties he would issue his rulings "soon."
The CNN segment at the center of the suit, which was shared on social media and also repackaged for CNN's website, began with Tapper informing viewers that CNN correspondent Alex Marquardt found "Afghans trying to get out of the country face a black market full of promises, demands of exorbitant fees, and no guarantee of safety or success."
Tapper tossed to Marquardt, who said "desperate Afghans are being exploited" and need to pay "exorbitant, often impossible amounts" to flee the country. Marquardt then singled out Young, putting a picture of his face on the screen and saying his company was asking for $75,000 to transport a vehicle of passengers to Pakistan or $14,500 per person to end up in the United Arab Emirates.
"Prices well beyond the reach of most Afghans," Marquardt told viewers.
CNN TURNS OVER INTERNAL DOCUMENTS AS PART OF HIGH-STAKES DEFAMATION SUIT
No other people or companies were named other than Young, who alleged that CNN, using the terms "black market," "exploit" and "exorbitant," inaccurately painted him as a bad actor preying on desperate people.
The segment was played in court on Wednesday.
Internal communications between CNN employees that were revealed during the discovery process have indicated editors were concerned about the segment but aired it anyway. Other internal communications revealed CNN employees used profanities and disparaging language when privately discussing Young.
A civil trial is scheduled to begin on Jan. 6 in front of Judge Henry in the Circuit Court for Bay County, Florida.
What's Your Reaction?
