On Monday, The Associated Press requested a judge to dismiss the defamation lawsuit filed by U.S. Navy veteran Zachary Young against the news agency, arguing that his allegations infringe upon “the rights of free speech.”

In a 21-page motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, the AP argues that Young’s lawsuit lacks “legal merit” and contravenes Florida’s anti-SLAPP law — designed to prevent strategic lawsuits against public participation — which allows for a swift dismissal of a defamation case if it is determined that the lawsuit aims to suppress 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.

Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.

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.