In his motion for summary judgment filed last week on the Billion dollar defamation suit against them, CNN argued that its allegedly defamatory report accusing plaintiff and Navy veteran Zachary Young of a crime was true because his efforts to remove women and children from Afghanistan were illegal under the law Taliban; or as it is more infamously known: Sharia law. All as the US approaches three years since the US withdrawal from Afghanistan.
CNN's opening paragraphs noted that Young had worked “to get women out of Afghanistan” and argued that “the discovery indicated that those activities he orchestrated and financed, which involved moving women out of Afghanistan, were almost certainly illegal under Taliban rule.” (bold added for emphasis).
CNN's lead defense attorney, Deanna K. Shullman, wrote the motion and seemed enthusiastic about her line of argument. “Young cannot point to a single shred of evidence to the contrary that could in any way create a dispute of material fact on this issue,” he wrote.
Throughout the document, CNN made it clear that they intended to defend themselves with laws they admit were oppressive to women. They repeatedly pointed out that Sharia law, as implemented by the Taliban, made it illegal for women to leave the country, which Young was helping them do:
All of the journalism at issue in this case arose out of the events of August 2021, when the US military withdrew from Afghanistan, lead the Taliban to take control of the country and ban the march of women. Because thousands of women faced possible execution or enslavement from the hand of the new government (…)
The new government had also implemented Sharia law, banning women from leaving the country and the threat of execution or enslavement for anyone who had collaborated with the US government (…)
CNN was so desperate to drop the defamation suit that they criticized the efforts of everyone, not just Young, who worked diligently to get people out of the country. “To get the women out, operators on the ground were forced to break the law directly or find someone to break the law for them.” they wrote to the court.
As if escaping a murderous band of terrorists was a bad thing, CNN listed a number of illegal activities that Young, the other officers and the people on the run were allegedly guilty of, including “avoid the Taliban”, “mak[ing] passed Taliban checkpoints” and keeping “people hidden from the Taliban,” meaning all activities that were illegal in Afghanistan at the time.”
A possible flaw in the plan to cite Sharia law in its defense is the fact that it is not a codified body of law and can change according to an individual's interpretation. This without mentioning that the Taliban are not the internationally recognized government of the country. This was something that CNN seemed to admit in one filing in May when they said: “it was that the market worked in the absence of a legal system that worked…”
The legal defense seemed to have something of an identity crisis, because while Shullman devoted all this work to defending CNN's framing of Young's activities as illegal under Sharia law, he also suggested that the CNN's original offensive report “had no intention of accusing Young of illegal conduct.”
The filing insisted that “the focus of CNN's journalism was never whether what Young and other private operators were doing was illegal under Taliban law,” but that it sought to expose “the war.” exploiters like Young.”
a quick one google search of the word “profiteering” appears an Oxford definition which explains the use of the noun as “the practice of making or attempting to obtain excessive or unfair profit, especially illegally or on a black market.And the explanation of the verb “take advantage” says: “to make or seek an excessive or unjust benefit, especially illegally or on a black market.”
CNN essentially blamed Young's insistence that he is being charged with a crime for his choice to cite Sharia law to prove his innocence:
But even if Young is correct that CNN has accused him of illegal conduct—which CNN vehemently denies—it still cannot prevail on his claims (…) discovery has indicated that the activities Young directed and funding were almost certainly illegal under Taliban law, as the Taliban banned Afghans (especially women) from leaving the country without permission and greatly restricted their movement within the country.
The filing also says that “CNN vigorously disputes” the claim that they accused Young of a crime, while actively citing 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 by common understanding was a gray market.
In June, Florida's First District Court of Appeal found that CNN charged Young with a crime when host Jake Tapper opened the report, which highlighted Young, with the words “black market,” which was accompanied by a matching chiron (pictured above). “So these are professional lawyers and writers who, you know, are used to dealing with words and they have dictionaries and they know how precisely: what do the words mean?” Judge L. Clayton Roberts pressed on.
In an unredacted partial transcript of CNN reporter Alex Marquardt's statement in the case, he admitted that they found no evidence that Young committed any crime. But while CNN made references to other officers on the ground flouting Sharia law and “taking advantage of the chaos and desperation,” again, Young was the only one singled out by name and with his towards the air
Still, CNN argued that the “gist” and “overall message” of its reporting was “true” and that there was no evidence of “actual malice” on its part.
But this is not accurate. Two courts and four judges (three at appellate level) had ruled that “Young offered sufficient evidence of actual malice, express malice, and a sufficiently outrageous level of conduct to open the door for punitive damages.”
Linked here is CNN's motion for summary judgment. It should be noted that it was written in a desperate attempt to extricate the news organization from a defamation lawsuit that had the strong possibility of being very damaging to both CNN's reputation and its finances. And as such, he goes after Young quite ruthlessly; as evidenced by their reliance on Sharia law.
And while the filing portrayed CNN's reporting as sound and comprehensive, Judge Roberts noted in his punitive damages decision that the network's own internal communication showed concern that it was not ready for public viewing. . “Young provided messages and emails to CNN showing internal concern about the integrity and veracity of the reporting: the story is “a mess,” “incomplete,” not “digital-ready,” “the story is 80% of emotion, 20% darkened.” done' and 'full of holes like Swiss cheese'”. He wrote
In response to questions from NewsBusters about why they were citing Sharia law, given that it was so oppressive to women, and if they didn't think that what Young was doing, in terms of saving women from that situation, was a good thing, a CNN spokesman said: “Young criticizes CNN for referring to 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 bona fide reading of CNN's submission that would support such a false, reckless and malicious characterization.“
English 
Español de Venezuela