For those following NewsBusters’ coverage of the defamation cases brought against CNN (successful) and the Associated Press (on-going) by Navy veteran Zachary Young, one name should be familiar: Charles D. Tobin. A lawyer with Ballard Spahr, Tobin was part of the legal team that represented CNN and then the AP. As with the nature of defamation cases, both hinged on words and their interpretations. Tobin’s arguments before Florida’s First District Court of Appeal have repeatedly shown an aversion to holding the media to objective definitions.
In the CNN case, the phrase “black market” was one of the contentious points Young successfully argued were defamatory against him. In an unsuccessful April 2024 appeal to the 1st DCA to overturn a ruling allowing Young to seek punitive damages, Tobin argued that a subjective use of the phrase be adopted (emphasis added):
Here, we’re on a question of actual malice, express malice, and outrageous conduct measured by objective standards. Under that criteria, your honor, regardless of what the meaning may be in the dictionary, which is an objective definition. What plaintiff needed to show is that subjectively CNN intended that meaning, otherwise there is no facts in the record to give rise to a reasonable jury question about actual [malice].
Read Full Article: https://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/nicholas-fondacaro/2026/06/12/media-defamation-lawyer-argues-against-using-objective
