CNN Faces Defamation Case Amidst Controversial Claims
CNN is currently embroiled in a defamation lawsuit. The case was initiated following a segment by Jake Tapper, which accused Zachary Young and his company Nemex Enterprises Inc. of exploiting individuals trying to escape Afghanistan, even insinuating he was akin to a human trafficker.
In a surprising twist, CNN's motion for summary judgment has referenced Sharia law, arguing that Young's actions in aiding people's escape were illegal under Islamic restrictions.
Defamation Case Background
CNN recently experienced a significant setback when Judge L. Clayton Roberts ruled that there was sufficient evidence of malice by CNN to meet the higher standard necessary for defamation. This conclusion was drawn from the discovery of internal memoranda and emails.
The report that sparked the lawsuit was aired on November 11, 2021, on CNN’s “The Lead with Jake Tapper”. In the segment, Tapper shared how CNN correspondent Alex Marquardt discovered a black market exploiting Afghans trying to leave the country. Marquardt further alleged that these desperate individuals were being taken advantage of and were required to pay exorbitant fees to escape.
Young and his company were singled out as examples of this claim.
The Potential Damages and Legal Standards
The potential damages in this case could be substantial. However, Young must meet the New York Times v. Sullivan standard of “actual malice”, which requires showing a knowing falsehood or a reckless disregard of the truth.
Judge Roberts ruled that Young had provided enough evidence of actual malice, express malice, and conduct outrageous enough to allow him to seek punitive damages.
Evidence included messages from Marquardt expressing a desire to “nail this Zachary Young” and predicting that the story would be Young’s “funeral.” CNN editor Matthew Philips responded to this with: “gonna hold you to that cowboy!” CNN senior editor Fuzz Hogan also described Young as “a shit.”
Controversial Reporting Tactics
CNN allegedly provided Young with only two hours to respond before airing the story. This is a common tactic used by the media to claim they waited for a response while providing the subject with a minimal response window.
Despite the tight timeline, Young managed to respond, prompting Marquardt to message a colleague, “fucking Young just texted.”
Surprising Defense Strategy
After losing the earlier motion on malice, CNN's lead counsel Deanna K. Shullman surprised many by referencing Sharia law in the motion for summary judgment. She argued that Young's actions, which involved moving women out of Afghanistan, were likely illegal under Taliban rule.
Young's counsel objected, pointing out that the allegations were never that “what Young and other private operators were doing was illegal under Taliban law.”
Future Implications
It remains uncertain how CNN will fare with this summary judgment motion. It seems more likely that this issue requires a factual finding from a jury.
It would be surprising if jurors agreed with CNN's argument that the network's outrage was based on the violation of the Taliban's oppressive laws - the very laws these people were desperately trying to escape from.
This lawsuit comes at an unfortunate time for CNN as it grapples with low ratings, layoffs, and dwindling revenue.
Bottom Line
This case presents a unique intersection of media ethics, defamation law, and international politics. It raises questions about the lengths media outlets will go to in their reporting and the potential consequences of their actions. What are your thoughts on this matter? Feel free to share this article with your friends and discuss. Remember, you can sign up for the Daily Briefing, which is available every day at 6pm.
