Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
FIRST ON FOX – U.S. Navy veteran Zachary Young is currently engaged in a heated legal battle with the Associated Press over a defamation lawsuit. As the July 3 hearing approaches, both parties continue to exchange court filings and arguments.
Earlier this year, Young successfully won a defamation case against CNN. He argued that the network damaged his reputation by suggesting he profited illegally from aiding Afghan individuals who sought to escape the country during the chaotic military withdrawal in 2021. Reporting on the trial, Associated Press media reporter David Bauder stated that “Young’s business helped smuggle people out of Afghanistan.” This assertion has since become a focal point in Young’s ongoing lawsuit against the AP.
Legal Challenges and Contentious Terms
Young’s legal team has taken particular issue with the terminology used by Associated Press, specifically the word “smuggle.” They argue that this word carries significant implications of criminality, claiming that the AP’s article contained even more severe inaccuracies than the statements made by CNN. As a result, Young is seeking nearly $500 million in damages from the AP.
Last week, the Associated Press filed a reply to its motion to dismiss the lawsuit, invoking Florida’s Anti-SLAPP statute. In their argument, the AP labeled Young’s claim as “meritless.” According to the AP’s legal team, Young concedes that the term “smuggle” does not necessarily imply criminal behavior in all circumstances.
The Ongoing Dispute Over Terminology
Young’s attorneys quickly contested this assertion in a response filed on Monday. They firmly stated, “Notably, AP’s reply brief inaccurately asserts that Plaintiff ‘concedes’ the word ‘smuggle’ does not necessarily imply criminal wrongdoing.” They reiterated that Young has never accepted that the terms “smuggle” or “human smuggling” are ambiguous, arguing instead that they are inherently defamatory.
Young’s team emphasized that the term “smuggle” is widely understood in journalistic and legal contexts to imply illegal activity. They pointed to the Associated Press Stylebook, which outlines definitions for “human smuggling” and related terms, as evidence that the AP was fully aware of the implications behind their language choice.
Journalistic Integrity Under Scrutiny
In their brief, Young’s lawyers asserted that rather than reporting the factual verdict from CNN’s case, the Associated Press chose to perpetuate a false narrative of criminality against him. They claimed this was a deliberate distortion reflecting actual malice—a serious allegation that could influence the lawsuit’s outcome.
The reply brief further criticized the Associated Press for framing its portrayal of Young as “news.” Young’s legal team dubbed it “litigation by byline,” implying that the outlet tried to disguise its bias as journalism. “Instead of reporting honestly on the outcome of the CNN case, they attempted to repackage the same false accusation,” they wrote.
Implications of the Legal Battle
The legal battle between Young and the Associated Press raises significant questions about journalistic responsibility and the power of language. Young’s attorneys contend that an average reader could draw the conclusion that he financed an illegal operation, reinforcing the damaging portrayal fostered by the AP’s reporting.
“The Associated Press didn’t just ignore the jury’s decision; they attempted to overrule it,” stated attorney Daniel Lustig. “They saw the verdict and deliberately escalated the same unsupported charges.” This assertion adds further weight to Young’s claims of defamation.
Judge William S. Henry has scheduled the next hearing for July 3, 2023. This date will be critical as he is expected to rule on both the AP’s motion to dismiss and Young’s amended complaint.
Response from the Associated Press
The Associated Press has consistently dismissed these allegations, labeling Young’s lawsuit as “frivolous” in multiple public statements. They have maintained that their reporting adhered to journalistic standards and did not infringe upon Young’s rights.
“The Associated Press thought they could hide behind privilege and the First Amendment while repeating a knowingly false claim,” attorney Michael Pike stated, reinforcing Young’s resolve in holding the AP accountable. He emphasized, “They were wrong. Mr. Young held CNN accountable, and he will do the same with the AP and with others who made the same choice.”
A Developing Story
The case continues to evolve as both sides prepare for the upcoming hearing. With significant financial stakes and serious allegations of journalistic malpractice, the outcome of this lawsuit could have far-reaching implications—not just for Zachary Young, but for the broader media landscape as well.
This ongoing legal confrontation highlights the essential discussion about the responsibility of media organizations in their reporting. It questions how language can influence public perception and the critical need for accuracy in journalism.
