The disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan four years ago was not without cost. A former member of the US Navy is now suing CNN for defamation. Judge William Henry ruled that Young can access CNN’s financial data. CNN charged Young with illegal profiteering during the withdrawal. CNN must make available to Young financial data from September 2021 to the present.
CNN’s Reporting Challenged in Court
CNN has found itself at the center of a defamation lawsuit filed by US Navy veteran Zachary Young. The case stems from a segment on “The Lead with Jake Tapper” on November 11, 2021, in which Young is accused of exploiting desperate Afghans during the US withdrawal from Afghanistan. Judge William S. Henry’s recent decision has granted Young access to CNN’s financial records, a critical step in the legal proceedings.
The lawsuit disputes CNN’s portrayal of Young’s company as profiting illegally from evacuation efforts. Young claims that the network’s coverage “destroyed his reputation and business by painting him as an illegal profiteer who exploited desperate Afghans.” This accusation is at the heart of the defamation claim, which has been deemed sufficient evidence to proceed to trial.
CNN Must Open Up Its Books in Defamation Lawsuit Over Afghanistan Withdrawal Reporting, Judge Rules https://t.co/7KgfU5fLCo
— Steve Williams (@HISteveWilliams) October 23, 2024
Judge’s Ruling and Financial Disclosure
Judge Henry’s decision orders CNN to produce financial documents dating back to September 2021. This ruling is significant because it enables Young’s legal team to evaluate the network’s net worth and potential ability to pay damages. The judge stated that “financial discovery requests shall be limited to the time period from September 2021 to the present, except for documents that can only be produced on a yearly basis, in which case the applicable time period shall be from January 1, 2021 to the present.”
“The Court’s ruling is an important step forward as we prepare for trial. We were glad to receive it, appreciate how quickly the Court issued the ruling, and are focused on being ready for trial this January.”
Furthermore, CNN must provide details on how the broadcast affected its market position, including internal discussions. This level of financial transparency is unusual and highlights the gravity of the allegations against the network.
A judge ordered that CNN must open its books from 2021 to the present in a defamation case.
A Navy vet claims the network "destroyed his reputation" by featuring him in a story on "black market" companies exploiting Afghans after the withdrawal. https://t.co/q3QdT1SJJn
— Justin Baragona (@justinbaragona) October 23, 2024
Unsubstantiated Claims and Legal Implications
The judge’s determination that CNN’s allegations against Young were unfounded is a key component of his decision. Despite CNN’s on-air reporting, Judge Henry stated unequivocally that Young did not act illegally or criminally. The court found no material fact dispute over Young’s actions, effectively dismissing CNN’s claims of a “black market” and exorbitant fees charged to Afghans fleeing the country.
“The judge in a high-stakes defamation lawsuit against CNN ruled on Tuesday that U.S. Navy veteran Zachary Young \”did not act illegally or criminally\” despite what the network reported on air.”
This decision builds on a previous 2023 case in Young’s favor and emphasizes the legal ramifications that media organizations may face when reporting on sensitive geopolitical issues without adequate evidence. The judge’s dismissal of CNN’s defense citing Sharia law as “irrelevant and unfounded” further undermines the network’s position.
Looking ahead to the trial.
The civil trial is set for January 6, 2025 in Bay County, Florida. This timeline gives both parties ample time to prepare their cases, with CNN now required to provide extensive financial documentation. The outcome of this trial could have far-reaching implications for journalism practices, particularly in reporting on complex international events like the Afghanistan withdrawal.
The media industry will be closely monitoring the legal process as it unfolds. The case serves as a reminder of the critical importance of factual accuracy and the potential consequences of unsubstantiated reporting, particularly when dealing with sensitive issues that can have a significant impact on people’s reputations and livelihoods.
Sources: