What is the most “jealously” protected kind of speech according to the court in this case? (3 points) basically the least jealously protected speech would be the one of public interest where people can express their feeling without restrain their point of view, which it means they are protected by 1st Amendment, however; the private matter or concern are protected by the law because is the most jealously speech since it is not a public concern. In the Esposito’s case is not consider protected so; the court decide that defendant cannot give names, address, and work place of plaintiff. As result, the defended focuses upon a person who is not public figures, is less stringently protect by the first amendment.

2 What court decided the case in the assignment?

The court decides that the decision should be affirm, and the lower court made the right decision. The defended was trying to dismiss the case however judge admit that it understood that the law that anyone can have expressions of an opinion which it could be not be true and the constitution protected those opinion and the plaintiff would not get compensation for damages, but in the this case it was enough evidence that it was a ill jokes and brought intentional distress to the plaintiff.

3 Briefly – state the facts of this case, using the information found in the case in LexisNexis. (5 points)

The court found that plaintiff had an actionable claim under the theory of intentional infliction of emotional distress because she was a private individual, and the matter was not of public interest or concern.

The defendants were not proceed by the first amendment because the plaintiff was a private employee and her matter was not supposed to be a public matter, but the defended decide to communicate to others listeners by calling her the “ugliest brides” and that point they