In their motion for summary judgment filed last week regarding the $1 billion defamation suit against them, CNN argued that their allegedly defamatory reporting accusing Plaintiff and Navy veteran Zachary Young of a crime was factually true because his efforts to get women and children out Afghanistan were illegal under Taliban law; or as it’s more infamously known: Sharia law. All as the U.S. approaches the three-year anniversary of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.
CNN’s opening paragraphs noted that Young had worked “to have women smuggled out of Afghanistan,” and argued “discovery has indicated that those activities he orchestrated and funded, which involved moving women out of Afghanistan, almost certainly were illegal under Taliban rule” (bold added to highlight).
The lead counsel for CNN’s defense, Deanna K. Shullman, wrote the motion and seemed enthusiastic about their line of argument. “Young cannot point to a single shred of evidence indicating otherwise that could somehow create a dispute of material fact as to that issue,” she wrote.
Throughout the document, CNN made it clear they intended to defend themselves with the laws they admit were oppressive of women. They repeatedly noted that Sharia law - as implemented by the Taliban - made it illegal for women to leave the country, which Young was helping them to do:
All of the journalism at issue in this case arose out of the events of August 2021, when the U.S. military withdrew from Afghanistan, leading the Taliban to take control of the country and ban women from leaving. Because thousands of women faced possible execution or enslavement at the hands of the new government (…)
The new government had also implemented Sharia law, banning women from leaving the country and threatening execution or enslavement for anyone who had collaborated with the U.S. government (…)
CNN was so desperate to get the defamation suit dropped that they decried the efforts of everyone, not just Young, who diligently worked to get people out of the country. “To get women out, the operators on the ground were required either to break the law directly or to find someone to break the law for them,” they wrote to the court.
As if escaping the a murderous band of terrorists was a bad thing, CNN listed off a series of illegal activities Young, the other operatives, and the people fleeing were allegedly guilty of, including “avoiding the Taliban,” “mak[ing] it past the Taliban checkpoints,” and keeping “people hidden from the Taliban”—i.e., all activities that were illegal in Afghanistan at the time.”
A possible flaw in the plan to cite Sharia law in their defense is the fact that it's not a set of codified laws and can change based on an individual's interpretation. That's not to mention that the Taliban are not the internationally recognized government of the country. This was something CNN seeming admitting back in a filing back in May when they said: "it was that the market was operating in the absence of a functioning legal system..." There's also the fact that in November 2022, a year after their original report on Young, CNN published a report saying the Taliban still had not full implemented Sharia.
The legal defense seemed to have something of an identity crisis, because while Shullman put all that work into defending CNN’s framing of Young’s activities as illegal under Sharia law, she also suggested CNN’s original offending reporting had “no intent to accuse Young of illegal conduct.”
The filing insisted “the focus of CNN’s journalism was never on whether what Young and other private operators were doing was illegal under Taliban law,” but instead was meant to expose “war profiteers such as Young.”
A quick Google search of the word “profiteering” turns up an Oxford definition that explains the noun usage as “the practice of making or seeking to make an excessive or unfair profit, especially illegally or in a black market.” And the “profiteer” verb explanation says: “make or seek to make an excessive or unfair profit, especially illegally or in a black market.”
CNN essentially blamed Young’s insistence that they accused him of a crime for their choice to cite Sharia law to prove their innocence:
But, even if Young is right that CNN accused him of illegal conduct—which CNN vigorously disputes—he still cannot prevail on his claims (…) discovery has indicated that the activities Young directed and funded almost certainly were illegal under Taliban law, as the Taliban prohibited Afghans (especially woman) from exiting the country without permission and vastly restricted their movement inside the country.
The filing also says “CNN vigorously disputes” the claim that they were accusing Young of a crime – while they were actively citing Sharia law as evidence of Young committing crimes. They further suggest that the use of the term “black market” was mean “to convey that the private market for evacuation services was unregulated,” which by common understanding was a gray market.
Back in June, Florida’s First District Court of Appeal found that CNN did accuse Young of a crime when host Jake Tapper opened the report, which singled out Young, with the words “black market,” which was accompanied with a matching chyron (pictured above). “So, these are lawyers and professional writers that, you know, are used to dealing with words and have dictionaries and know how precise – what words mean?” Judge L. Clayton Roberts pressed.
In an unredacted partial transcript of CNN reporter Alex Marquardt’s deposition in the case, he admitted that they didn’t find any evidence of Young committing a crime. But while CNN made references to other operatives on the ground who broke Sharia law and were “taking advantage of the chaos and desperation,” again, Young was the only one singled out by name and by having his face shown on-air.
Still, CNN argued that the “gist” and “overall message” of their reporting were “true” and that there was no evidence of “actual malice” on their part.
But that’s not accurate. Two courts and four judges (three at the appellate level) had ruled that “Young sufficiently proffered evidence of actual malice, express malice, and a level of conduct outrageous enough to open the door for him to seek punitive damages.”
Linked here is CNN’s motion for summary judgment. It should be noted that it was written in a desperate attempt to get the news organization out of a defamation suit that had the strong possibility of being very damaging to both CNN’s reputation and their finances. And as such, it goes after Young pretty ruthlessly; as evidenced by their reliance on Sharia law.
And while the filing portrayed CNN's reporting as rock solid and whole, Judge Roberts did note in his punitive damages ruling that the network's own internal communication showed concern about it not being ready for public viewing. "Young proffered CNN messages and emails that showed internal concern about the completeness and veracity of the reporting—the story is ‘a mess,’ ‘incomplete,’ not ‘fleshed out for digital,’ ‘the story is 80% emotion, 20% obscured fact,’ and ‘full of holes like Swiss cheese,’” he wrote.
In response to NewsBusters' questions about why they were citing Sharia law, given it was so oppressive of women, and if they didn't think what Young was doing, in terms of saving women from that situation, was a good thing, a CNN spokesperson said: “Young takes issue with CNN referring to the conditions on the ground as a black market. Acknowledging the state of local law is a necessary part of the legal analysis. There is no good faith reading of CNN’s filing that supports such a false, reckless, and malicious characterization.”
