Esposito-Hilder v. SFX 1. What is the most “jealously” protected kind of speech, according to the court in this case? (3 points) * According to the court in this case, “most jealously protected speech is that which advances the free, uninhibited flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern; that which is addressed to matters of private concern, or focuses upon persons who are not "public figures", is less stringently protected”( Annette Esposito-Hilder, Respondent, v. SFX Broadcasting, Inc). 2. What court decided the case in the assignment? (2 points) * Supreme Court of New York, Appelate Division, Third Department 3. Briefly – state the facts of this case, using the information found in the case in LexisNexis. (5 points) * Annette Esposito-Hilder accused radio station hosts of WPYX of intentionally inflicting emotional distress after the hosts named her the Ugliest Bride as part of a contest. * The hosts departed from their practice of only using first names and aired the woman's full name and place of work, a competing radio station. * Justice Mikoll determined that the state's relatively strong interest in compensating individuals for harm outweighs the First Amendment protection accorded defendants. In particular, the fact that the radio hosts gave so much information about Esposito-Hilder serves as evidence that their broadcast was a deliberate intent to inflict injury. 4. According to the case, why was this not defamation, and what tort did the court approve a filing for? (5 points) * This was not defamation because “under no circumstances would it be reasonable to consider the content of defendants' broadcast as anything but pure, subjective opinion” ( Annette Esposito-Hilder, Respondent, v. SFX Broadcasting, Inc). The court did approve filing under the tort of “Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.” The contest "winner" was a private individual and the subject of the contest was of little or no public interest, the court held, a jury could find there was a deliberate intent to inflict injury because the routine was expanded to include the plaintiff's name and the fact that the parties are competitors in the broadcast industry. 5. In the decision, why does the court state further proceedings will be required? (5 points) * The only issue that has been fully decided is whether Annette’s complaint satisfies a cause of action for the intentional infliction of emotional distress. The resulted decision was that it satisfies the complaint to move towards further proceedings to determine the tort in front of a jury. 6. Do you agree with this decision? Why or why not? (5 points) * I feel the decision is fair. Although the court would not find defendants’ conduct outrageous as a matter of law, it determined that she had put forth the other elements of an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. It determined that the actions by the hosts should not be tolerated, causing emotional distress to an individual in which the outcome can be decided by a jury.

Roach v. Stern A. the name and citation of the case (5 points) * Jeff Roach v. Howard Stern * 252 A.D.2d 488; 675 N.Y.S.2d 133; 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7998. Retrieved from www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic B. the name of the court which decided the case (3 points) * Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department C. the year of the decision (2 points) * 1998 D. the facts of the case (5 points) * Howard Stern played a morbid gag involving the cremated ashes of a Ms. Deborah Roach, who was a topless dancer, while saying crude remarks * Stern "offered to glue her together," told Hayden to chew pieces of the bone fragments and picked up a piece of bone, exclaiming, "Look at the size of this! That looks like a piece of her head.” * In 1996, Melissa Roach Driscoll and Jeff Roach filed an $8 million suit in Kings County Court claiming Stern caused them emotional distress with his actions involving the remains of their sister * A lower court dismissed the suit, but an appellate court reinstated it in 1998. E. the issue of the case (5 points) * The issues are – (1) whether the complaint establishes a viable cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress; (2) whether the complaint states a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress, encompassing the tort of mishandling the remains of a dead person. F. the “decision” of the case (5 points) * In regards to the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the Court of Appeals has held that in order to survive a motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs' allegations must satisfy the rule set forth in Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp. (58 N.Y.2d 293, 303): “One who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another is subject to liability for emotional distress.” To establish liability, the conduct must have been “so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community” “While the plaintiffs now claim that Stern's conduct following their sister's untimely death caused them extreme emotional distress, the defendants note that on one occasion, the decedent's own mother appeared on the show, describing her daughter as an unusual young woman who was "a lot of fun". Therefore the issue was dismissed because the alleged conduct was not sufficiently outrageous. In regards to the mishandling remains of a dead person, Melissa Roach Driscol voluntarily gave half of the cremated remains to defendant Chaunce Hayden. At that point, since a gift was made of Ms. Tay's remains, whatever property interest she had in her sister's remains was forfeited. Mr. Hayden, as done, was then free to do as he saw fit with his share of the remains. That he chose Howard Stern's program as a forum to memorialize Ms. Tay does not give rise to a cognizable cause of action for negligent mishandling of a corpse. G. for what principle of law was the Esposito case used (cited for) in the case? (5 points) * The element of outrageous conduct not being satisfied as a matter of law. 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.)