Inset: Zachary Young watching court proceedings on Jan. 13, 2025 (Law&Crime). Background: FILE — The Associated Press logo is shown at the entrance to the news organization’s office in New York on Thursday, July 13, 2023 (AP Photo/Aaron Jackson, File).
The Associated Press on Monday asked a judge to dismiss U.S. Navy veteran Zachary Young‘s defamation lawsuit against the wire service, saying his claims infringe on “the rights of free speech.”
In a 21-page motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment, the AP claims Young’s lawsuit is without “legal merit” and that it runs afoul of Florida’s anti-SLAPP — or strategic lawsuit against public participation — law, which can put a quick end to a defamation lawsuit if a court determines said lawsuit is an effort to chill free speech.
In January, Young won at least $5 million after successfully suing CNN for defaming him during a broadcast about his private business efforts to evacuate people from Afghanistan as the war-torn country was overrun by the Taliban. That trial ended in Young’s favor, but the parties ultimately settled before jurors could decide on what appeared likely to be a substantial sum in punitive damages.
Now, Young is asking for another Bay County jury to assess a similar punishment against the AP for the way they reported on his victory.
In his underlying lawsuit, Young took issue with the phraseology employed by media reporter David Bauder when he wrote: “Young’s business helped smuggle people out of Afghanistan.”
“In its article, AP published the defamatory statement, with actual malice, that Mr. Young’s business ‘helped smuggle people out of Afghanistan,”” the initial complaint filed in the 14th Judicial Circuit Court reads. “This statement is categorically false. At the time of publication, AP knew or recklessly disregarded that a Florida court had already ruled Plaintiff committed no crime in connection with the Afghanistan evacuations. Mr. Young never ‘smuggled’ anyone.”
The news-gathering organization insists the lawsuit is off-base and rubbishes “Young’s effort to isolate a single word from the Article to ascribe to it a meaning opposite to what it reasonably conveys.” The AP also says this effort by the plaintiff is “impermissible under Florida law.”
“Literally, the entire article was about the jury’s favorable reception of Young’s claims in the CNN case,” the motion to dismiss reads.
In their filing, the AP says the article is protected by the fair report privilege under Sunshine State law, which “safeguards the ability of the press to report about legal and other official proceedings.”
“Florida courts have made clear that the privilege must be construed broadly, and that, under the privilege, a plaintiff cannot dictate every word a journalist uses to cover a proceeding,” the motion goes on. “In this case, the Article provided an accurate overview of the Young v. CNN proceeding, including of both the substance of Young’s allegations and the favorable outcome he achieved in the case. Young cannot defeat the privilege based on a strained reading of a single word divorced from its context.”
From the motion to dismiss, at length:
The clear and unmistakably message of the Article is positive toward Young. The Article not only conveyed that he prevailed in his defamation lawsuit against CNN by winning a multi-million dollar jury verdict, it also made clear that he specifically received vindication on his contention that CNN falsely “implied he was involved in something illegal.” The Article also, in its very first sentence, characterized the business activities of Young’s that were addressed in CNN’s reporting as involving “help[ing] rescue endangered Afghans.” And, the Article included a quote from Young’s own trial lawyer stating that, as a result of the jury’s verdict in Young’s favor, he “feels heard in a way that he hasn’t felt for over three years.” Thus, far from defaming Young, the unmistakable take-away from the Article was that Young had been vindicated in a defamation lawsuit in which he claimed he had done nothing illegal.
To that end, the wire service says, the lawsuit should be tossed because the article “cannot be reasonably read to convey anything defamatory about Young,” is “not actionable as a matter of law,” and is an affront to the “right of free speech in connection with a public issue.”
“It is premised on the facially implausible contention that The AP made the exact same accusation — that Young had engaged in criminal activities in connection with his Afghan evacuations — that the Article made clear a jury had rejected in the CNN case,” the motion to dismiss reads.
In additional filings, including an amended complaint adding a claim for punitive damages, Young’s attorneys cited several dozen instances in which the word “smuggle” — as well as iterations like “smugglers” and “smuggling” — were used by the AP “to imply criminal activity.” Young also says the AP understood the term to imply as much in their article about him and this use occurred “deliberately, not carelessly.”
In service of their argument, the AP cited a selection of their own articles where the terms “smuggle” and “smuggling” are used to describe lifesaving efforts during the Nazi Holocaust and in the antebellum United States.
“Presumably, Young would agree that none of these articles defamed its subject by using the word ‘smuggle’ with reference to the rescue activities described therein,” the AP argues. “The same applies here.”
Again, the news organization insists context is key.
“In context, the phrases ‘a U.S. Navy veteran who helped rescue endangered Afghans,’ ‘extracting Afghans following the Taliban takeover,’ and ‘helped smuggle people out of Afghanistan’ each conveyed only that Young was evacuating people out of Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, which (as Young himself testified at trial) necessarily involved furtive and risky activity,” the motion to dismiss continues. “That is not defamatory, especially in the context of an Article about how he had prevailed in a defamation lawsuit in which he accused CNN of falsely characterizing his evacuations as criminal or immoral.”
In comments to Fox News, Young’s attorney, Daniel Lustig, savaged the AP’s arguments.
“If this feels familiar, it’s because it is,” Lustig said. “The only thing that’s changed is the logo on the letterhead. AP called Mr. Young a human smuggler, broadcast it around the world, and now claim they meant it in a nice way. When he asked them to correct a single word, they refused.”
Young is seeking upward of $435 million in combined damages.
