Update: CNN filed a motion Wednesday seeking a dismissal of the $275 million lawsuit filed against the network by the family of Nick Sandmann.

The motion asks the Eastern District of Kentucky to dismiss the suit, arguing it fails to show CNN's reporting was defamatory.

Each of 53 CNN statements identified in the Sandmann lawsuit should be dismissed for reasons such as that they are substantially true, do not concern Nick, are not defamatory or are subjective opinion, the motion states.

One of the identified statements was published in an opinion piece. The piece accused Nick and his "MAGA-hat clad classmates at Covington Catholic High School" of acting with "racist disrespect" toward Nathan Phillips, one of the Native Americans involved in an encounter at the Lincoln Memorial in January.

Deeming someone a racist, the CNN motion says, is not actionable in a defamation case because it cannot be proved true or false. This principle was recently upheld in another case, CNN adds.

Addressing the Sandmann claim that a statement about the students chanting "Build the wall," CNN writes it is not defamatory against Nick for two reasons.

It refers to a group of actors and not Nick directly, and it is not defamatory to say Nick "expressed support for the President or that he echoed a signature slogan of a major political party," the motion states.

Claims that students chanted "build the wall" were not corroborated.

Like in The Washington Post's defense of a $250 million suit brought by Nick Sandmann, CNN relies on the group libel rule. The network writes that Kentucky and federal courts uphold that statements about a large group cannot be construed as defamatory against an individual among that group.

The Sandmann lawsuit against CNN was filed in March and stated "CNN brought down the full force of its corporate power, influence, and wealth on Nicholas by falsely attacking, vilifying, and bullying him despite the fact that he was a minor child."

Previous reporting: Nick Sandmann's legal team disputed The Washington Post's motion to dismiss a defamation lawsuit stemming from its coverage of the January incident involving Covington Catholic students and Native Americans.

The response, filed Tuesday by L. Lin Wood and Todd McMurtry, attacks several claims made in The Post's dismissal motion.

At issue are the parties' diverging interpretations of libel law applicable to the circumstances in this case.

Whereas The Post asserted in its motion that the First Amendment protects subjective statements of opinion, Nick's lawyers claim The Post reported some "implied provably false facts."

Wood and McMurtry pointed to reporting concerning whether Nick accosted Nathan Phillips, one of the Native Americans, and whether he blocked Phillips's path.

Nick's attorney's point to The Post's editor's note that now accompanies its first story on the incident as evidence its reporting was inaccurate.

The Post contends it first reported the accounts of the only participants speaking publicly and later updated its coverage as more information became available, as often happens when a story develops over time. It adds its reporting did not rise to defamation.

"That man (Phillips) was entitled to offer his subjective point of view, and the Post had a right to report it," The Post writes.

Nick, then a 16-year-old Covington Catholic student, was thrust into the national spotlight when videos of him and his classmates interacting with others outside the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., went viral in January.

Both parties to the defamation suit invoke a U.S. Supreme Court decision, Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co, that deals with opinions vs. facts in such cases.

More:Nick Sandmann of CovCath may face challenges in proving defamation, experts say

"The Milkovich standard is clear," Nick's attorneys write, "an opinion stating that an objectively verifiable event occurred necessarily implies the existence of undisclosed facts to support the opinion."

The Post's attorneys argue Milkovich protects its reporting that "scores of students around him (a Native American elder) seem to mimic and mock him" because the word "seem" signals to readers that they can watch videos of the incident and judge themselves.

The Post also claimed its statement about "scores of students" cannot be construed as concerning Nick, pointing to what's known as group libel doctrine.

Nick's attorneys state that interpretation "ignored an entire body of law eviscerating" a defense by group libel doctrine.

"The Post made Nicholas the poster child for the false narrative that some white, Catholic boys wearing MAGA caps had targeted and engaged in threatening racist conduct..." the attorneys write. "Thus, each and every accusation the Post made against the CovCath students is reasonably understood to apply to Nicholas."

Nick's attorneys claim The Post's publishing the Diocese of Covington's statement about the incident was also libelous.

Part of The Post's motion to dismiss argued that Nick failed to plead special damages.

Nick, The Post writes, alleges that he suffered permanent harm to his reputation, severe emotional distress and must deal with concern for his safety.

But these examples do not extend beyond "mere embarrassment" that support actual economic loss, The Post writes.

"Courts have repeatedly held that such allegations cannot establish special damages as a matter of law," The Post writes.

Nick's attorneys argue that under Kentucky common law, statements that tend to "degrade and disgrace" or expose someone to "public hatred" are libelous.

The Post was the first media company to be sued by Nick. The Covington Catholic student is seeking $250 million, "the amount Jeff Bezos, the world's richest person, paid in cash for the Post," the initial complaint states.

Nick and his attorneys are also suing CNN and NBC.

More:Nick Sandmann: Covington Catholic student's legal team sues NBC, MSNBC

SUPPORT LOCAL JOURNALISM: Subscribe now for access to all our coverage