Come now, Karol, you know _exactly_ what's wrong with CNN--it's called a lack of consequences.

I mean, is the couple going to sue for an amount that's going to cripple CNN's news desk? Storm CNN headquarters and see how the execs in charge their like cowering for their lives? Is the British government going to kick CNN out of their country in protest? The answer to all of these is "no," so good ol' CNN will continue to aid and abet terrorists, dictators, and the like until something horrible happens _directly_ to them based on their actions.

I mean, is the couple going to sue for an amount that's going to cripple CNN's news desk...no.

Why the hell not?!

The assholes are culpable for nearly killing them. I'd sue their asses off if I were in their position.

CNN is a evil organization.

1. From 1995 to 2003, CNN covered up the Saddam's atrocities so they could keep an office in Baghdad. 600,000 Iraqis were executed by Saddam and CNN were well aware of those executions and kept them secret.

2. During the Battle of Fallujah, the army briefed CNN on the tactics they would use in the battle. CNN was warned that any leaking of that information would cost American lives.
CNN promptly broadcast our secret plans. The terrorists reacted on that information.

As a side note:

The army knew that CNN reporters were traitors so they fed them false information knowing full well CNN would broadcast it. This false information confused the terrorists and that confusion was a factor in their defeat. After the Battle was over, CNN complained about being given false information.

Gerard,

I'm pretty sure the couple would have trouble proving that CNN was the reason the terrorists started looking for them in the first place. In the second place, it'd probably drift into First Amendment territory--and CNN would have good lawyers. Finally, if it looked like things were going to go awry, CNN would probably settle for an amount that was large enough for the couple to be happy but far from large enough for an abject lesson to be learned.

Sue their asses off, they're responsible!

I wouldn't settle for anything less than what Richard Jewell got from them, and if they tried to low-ball me I'd take them directly to court.

There's no such thing as the 1st Amendment in British law, just ask Rachel Ehrenfield.

I don't think there is a cause of action for "not being killed by terrorists but being really, really worried about it."

James,

The First Amendment protects political speech. It is not a blanket protection for all speech. Just as one cannot falsely yell fire in a theater, or print military secrets, so to there is an obligation to take minimal steps not to help an ongoing crime or attack.
CNN willfully turned itself into an intelligence branch for the terrorists. They are financially liable, and frankly the reporters and producers should be prosecuted as co-conspirators.

NSRQ: was the Brit couple also Jewish?

There were 6 jews killed as far as I've seen in the news, but these were based away from any hotel. I was hugely impressed by the Black Cat commandos (aided a little by visiting SAS 'advisors'), and their swift and decisive countermeasures.
Also, the people of Mumbai who told visiting US and UK citizens to say they were Italian, in order to protect them. Good and brave people indeed.

The First Amendment protects speech period given the precedent. I mean, hello--what is political about pornography again?

In CNN's case, this is not the first time they've done stuff like this. If the company didn't get dinged for admittedly helping Saddam Hussein get his version of the message out prior to OIF, I don't think they're going to catch a kick to the junk for _merely_ telling terrorists where to find their targets.

In addition, I think you'd have to prove malicious intent to cross that barrier of "Fire" in a crowded theater. This goes doubly so if the report originated from a news headquarters half a world away when the situation was in a flux. Remember, the Indian government themselves were putting out conflicting reports, so if CNN just says, "We had a source that told us there was no danger..."...well, no more multi-million dollar lawsuit.

Trust me, I'm not taking CNN's side on this--I'd actually get great humor out of said couple walking into the HQ and taking matters into their own hands. (Er, not that I would ever advocate violence in a public forum. I'm just saying I'd cackle maniacally because some people getting their terminal just desserts is amusing to me.) However, that's just not going to happen, and I think the odds of a successful lawsuit are so slim it's not going to happen either for the reasons I laid out above.

Plenty of companies have been forced to change behavior even after winning lawsuits. If there are enought of these, the cost of legal aid turns their victories int a Pyrrhic affair.

The left uses this threat to attack corporations all the time. I thing decent Americans should take a page from the left here.

Would a reasonable person expect that his action(s) would contribute to a crime? Such speech is not "protected" (really a misnomer when you view it as a natural right).

At the very least, it would have been criminal neglegence had the couple been injured or killed. This means if criminal negligence is the only charge, then the couple have no recourse in criminal court, because they came out unharmed. Were I the prosecutor, I'd seek an indictment for aiding and abetting, which does not require a victim who was physically harmed. This argument is based on the argument that a reasonable person would know that broadcasting the victims' location would put them in grave danger.

Could CNN's role even be actual conspiracy, though I doubt any jury or judge would return a conviction for that? Did CNN willfully and with malice aforethought provide information to get these two people killed?

This is based on American law; I don't know what British and Indian law are capable of.

If your idea of a holiday is buggering around in third world bung holes with untouchables, one must expect a few casualties.