Assignment:

For this assignment – you will need to access the LexisNexis database in the Keller Library, from the student resources tab under Course Home.

Go to Jennings Chapter 9, page 315, problem 5. Use LexisNexis in the Keller library and look up the Esposito-Hilder vs. SFX case. Use the citation you find in your book to do the search. Read the case and answer these questions in the Week 3 Homework Answers template in Doc Sharing.

 Note:Homework Field of study isn’t in the list. So the Field of Study is  

1.What is the most jealously protected kind of speech, according to the court in this case? (3 points)

2.What court decided the case in the assignment? (2 points)

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

4.According to the case, why was this not defamation, and what tort did the court approve a filing for? (5 points)

5.In the decision, why does the court state further proceedings will be required? (5 points)

6.Do you agree with this decision? Why or why not? (5 points)

 

Now, in the library, click the Shepardize button in the top right of the LexisNexis page while on the case. This provides you with all of the cases which have used the Esposito case as precedent since its publication. Out of the 30 cases listed pick one, click the link, read the case, and provide the following information in the Week 3 Homework Case template in Doc Sharing:

A.the name and citation of the case (5 points)

B.the name of the court which decided the case (3 points)

C.the year of the decision (2 points)

D.the facts of the case (5 points)

E.the issue of the case (5 points)

F.the decision of the case (5 points)

G.for what principle of law was the Esposito case used (cited for) in the case? (5 points)

H.following the directions in the library, download a Word-Doc copy of the case, and include your name in the note section of the download. Attach a copy of the document with your assignment this week. (10 points) (Your name must be in the automatically populated note area for full points for this.)

Jennings Chapter 9, page 315, problem 5.

Problem5. Two disc jockeys at WPYX-FM radio in Albany, New York, were sued for intentional infliction of emo- tional distress by Annette Esposito-Hilder, who was identified on the air by the two disc jockeys as the winner of the ugliest bride contest. The two disc jockeys sponsored an ugliest bride contest based on the wedding pictures in the daily newspaper. Viewers

were invited to call in with their guesses as to which bride had been chosen. Generally, the disc jockeys did not reveal last names of the brides. However, in Ms. Esposito-Hilder’s case, they broke with past practice and revealed her name.

On appeal of the case from an earlier dismissal, the court held that no defamation was involved in their statements because they were pure, subjective opin- ion. The court did hold, however, that a suit for inten- tional infliction of emotional distress could go forward. The court held, Comedic expression does not receive absolute First Amendment protection.

Is this defamation? Is opinion protected by the First Amendment? Does it make any difference that Ms. Esposito-Hilder was employed by a competing radio station in the area at the time she won the contest? [Esposito-Hilder v SFX Broadcasting, Inc., 665 N.Y.S.2d 697 (1997)]