1. What is the most “jealously” protected kind of speech, according to the court in this case?
According to the notes on the case, “the most jealously protected [kind of] speech is that which advances the free, uninhibited flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern” (236 A.D.2d 186, 1997). In other words, the freedom of speech is the most protected form of speech, however, cases and claims that focus on people who are not considered to be “public figures”, is less strictly protected.

2. What court decided the case in the assignment?
The Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Third Department.

3. Briefly – state the facts of this case, using the information found in the case in LexisNexis.
A radio station broadcast an “ugly bride” competition in which debasing title was made to the bride’s wedding picture which happened to be in their local newspaper. The radio station’s listeners were encouraged to send in their own insulting remarks, and the bride was identified by name and by her employer, who happened to be the owner of one of the competing radio stations. The bride then filed litigation against the radio station (236 A.D.2d 186, 1997).

4. According to the case, why was this not defamation, and what tort did the court approve a filing for?
A statement is only considered defamatory if it happens to expose the plaintiff to public hatred, contempt, ridicule or disgrace; in other words, if it would be considered defamatory if the statement lead the average person in the community to shape an evil or bad opinion of the plaintiff. But according to the case notes, the plaintiff’s claim is not based on the law of defamation; it is based on the law of intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress (236 A.D.2d 186, 1997). Furthermore, the “constitutional rule, limited to defamation of public figures, allows public figures to recover for libel or defamation only when they can prove both that the statement was false and that the statement was made with the requisite level of culpability” (236 A.D.2d 186, 1997). In this case the plaintiff was not a public figure, so the court approved a filing for the intentional infliction of emotional distress.

5. In the decision, why does the court state further proceedings will be required?
The only issue to be decided on this appeal is whether plaintiff's amended complaint sufficiently states a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotion distress. Inasmuch as the complaint is, in my view, legally sufficient for this purpose.

6. Do you agree with this decision? Why or why not?
I agree in the result reached by the majority which sustains the amended complaint because the plaintiff was emotionally damaged and distressed by the radio station and it’s host since, they made the picture public and open to insult and ridicule. The picture was posted with the intent to insult the subject involved and while it has definite defamatory overtones, the bride probably suffered extreme ridicule and embarrassment. Personally, if I were in her position I would not want to be seen for a week or two just to get over the embarrassment.

A. The name and citation of the case:
Jeff Roach v. Howard Stern (97-01389) 252 A.D.2d 488; 675 N.Y.S.2d 133; 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7998

B. The name of the court which decided the case:
Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department

C. The year of the decision:
July of 1998

D. The facts of the case:
A popular cable talk show host, aired a program where the remains of deceased topless dancer were shown accompanied by crude remarks. The lower court previously dismissed pursuant to the complaint filed by appellants, for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Appellants sought review, and the court reversed the decision (252 A.D.2d 488, 1998).

E. The issue of the case:
The decedent’s family members, sought review from an order of the Supreme Court, in Kings County, New York, that granted the motion of the talk-show host and broadcasting company, to dismiss appellants’ complaint for intentional infliction of emotional distress regarding respondents’ broadcast of the program where the deceased person’s cremated remains were displayed. Reviewing the case it was found that the element of outrageousness could not be proven (252 A.D.2d 488, 1998).

F. The “decision” of the case:
The lower court dismissed the complaint filed by the appellants, (the deceased’s family members), against the talk-show host and broadcasting company, of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Dismissal of the alleged inappropriate handling of the remains was affirmed (252 A.D.2d 488, 1998).

G. For what principle of law was the Esposito case used (cited for) in the case?
As stated in the notes of the case, Esposito-Hilder v. SFX was cited as an example “that the Supreme Court erred in determining that the element of outrageous conduct was not satisfied as a matter of law” (252 A.D.2d 488, 1998).

Bibliography
236 A.D.2d 186; 665 N.Y.S.2d 697; 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12142; 26 Media L. Rep. 1541. LexisNexis Academic. Web. Date Accessed: 2013/09/22.
252 A.D.2d 488; 675 N.Y.S.2d 133; 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7998. LexisNexis Academic. Web. Date Accessed: 2013/09/22.