CNN cites Taliban sharia law to justify innocence in billion-dollar defamation lawsuit

In their motion for summary judgment filed last week in the billion-dollar defamation lawsuit 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 smuggle women and children out of Afghanistan were illegal under Taliban law; or as it is more infamously known: Sharia law. All this as the United States approaches the third anniversary of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. CNN’s opening paragraphs noted that Young had worked “to smuggle women out of Afghanistan” and asserted that “discovery indicated that the activities he orchestrated and funded, which involved smuggling women out of Afghanistan, were almost certainly illegal under the Taliban regime” (emphasis added). CNN’s lead defense attorney, Deanna K. Shullman, drafted the motion and seemed enthusiastic about their argument. “Young cannot point to a single shred of evidence to the contrary that would in any way create a dispute on material facts regarding this issue,” she wrote. Throughout the document, CNN made clear that it intended to defend itself with laws it admits are oppressive to women. It repeatedly emphasized that Sharia law—as enforced by the Taliban—made it illegal for women to leave the country, which Young helped them do: All of the journalism at issue in this case arose from 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 were at risk of 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 collaborated with the U.S. government (…) CNN was so desperate to get the libel suit dismissed that it denounced the efforts of everyone, not just Young, who worked diligently to get people out of the country. “To get the women out, the operators on the ground had to either break the law directly or find someone to break the law for them,” they wrote to the court. As if escaping a band of murderous terrorists were a bad thing, CNN listed a series of illegal activities that Young, the other agents, and the fugitives allegedly engaged in, including “evading the Taliban,” “passing Taliban checkpoints,” and “hiding people from the Taliban”—all activities that were illegal in Afghanistan at the time. One possible flaw in the plan to cite Sharia law in their defense is that it is not a codified set of laws and can change based on individual interpretations. Not to mention the Taliban is not the country’s internationally recognized government. That’s what CNN seemed to admit in a filing last May, when they said, “The market operated in the absence of a functioning legal system…” The legal defense seemed to have something of an identity crisis, because while Shullman devoted all of her work to defending CNN’s portrayal of Young’s activities as illegal under Sharia law, she also suggested that CNN’s incriminating reporting had “no intention of accusing Young of illegal conduct.” The filing insisted that “the purpose of CNN’s journalism was never to find out whether what Young and other private operators were doing was illegal under Taliban law,” but rather to expose “war profiteers like Young.” A quick Google search of the word “profiteering” brings up an Oxford definition that explains the use of the noun as “the practice of making or seeking to make an excessive or unfair profit, especially illegally or in a black market.” And the explanation of the verb “profiteer” says: “to make or seek to make excessive or unfair profit, especially illegally or in a black market.” CNN essentially blamed Young’s insistence on charging it with a crime on their choice to cite Sharia law to prove their innocence: But even if Young is correct that CNN accused him of illegal conduct — which CNN vigorously disputes — it still can’t make its case (…) discovery indicated that the activities Young directed and funded were almost certainly illegal under Taliban law, because the Taliban prohibited Afghans (especially women) from leaving the country without permission and severely restricted their travel within the country. The filing also says that “CNN vigorously disputes” the claim that they were accusing Young of a crime — when they actively cited Sharia law as evidence that Young committed crimes. They further suggest that the use of the term “black market” was intended to “convey that the private market for evacuation services was unregulated,” which was widely understood to be a gray market. Last June, the Florida First District Court of Appeal ruled that CNN had indeed accused Young of a crime when anchor Jake Tapper opened the report by referring to Young as “black market,” along with a corresponding chyron (pictured above). “So these are professional lawyers and writers who, you know, are used to manipulating words and have dictionaries and know precisely what the words mean?” Judge L. Clayton Roberts insisted. In a partial, unredacted transcript of CNN reporter Alex Marquardt’s deposition in the case, he admitted that they found no evidence that Young committed a crime. But while CNN referred to other agents on the ground who had broken Sharia law and “taken advantage of the chaos and desperation,” Yong was once again the only one named and his face shown on air. Yet CNN maintained that the “gist” and “general message” of their reporting was “true” and that there was no evidence of “actual malice” on their part. But that’s not true. Two courts and four judges (including three on appeal) have ruled that “Young has provided sufficient evidence of actual malice, explicit malice, and a level of conduct sufficiently outrageous to open the door for him to seek punitive damages.” Here is a link to CNN’s motion for summary judgment. It should be noted that it was drafted in a desperate attempt to extricate the news organization from a defamation lawsuit that had the potential to be very damaging to CNN’s reputation and its finances. And as such, she goes after Young quite mercilessly, as evidenced by their use of Sharia law. And while the motion describes CNN’s reporting as robust and complete, Judge Roberts noted in his ruling on punitive damages that the network’s own internal communications showed concerns that it wasn’t ready for public release. “Young presented CNN messages and emails that showed internal concerns about the completeness and truthfulness of the reporting—the story is ‘a mess,’ ‘incomplete,’ ‘not fleshed out for digital,’ ‘the story is 80 percent emotional, 20 percent factual,’ and ‘full of holes like Swiss cheese,’” he wrote. In response to NewsBusters’ questions about why they cite Sharia law, given that it is so oppressive to women, and whether they don’t think what Young is doing, in terms of rescuing women from this situation, is a good thing, a CNN spokesperson said: “Young disputes CNN’s characterization of the conditions on the ground as a black market. Recognizing the state of local law is a necessary part of legal analysis. No good-faith reading of CNN’s record supports such a false, reckless and malicious characterization.”