Access Lexisnexis Database Keller Library, Student Resources

access LexisNexis database Keller Library, student resources tab Course Home According to the court in this case, the most "jealously" protected free speech is that which prohibits people from taking about matters of public interest and the ideas and notions that surround the concerns of the public. The Supreme Court of New York originally decided that the defendant's grounds to dismiss the plaintiff's action because there was not a cause of action stated.

The fact in this case are that a radio station made disparaging remarks about a newlywed woman, Annette Esposito-Hilder, in its daily programming show called "Ugliest Bride." However, these radio station representatives did something that they do not usually do which is to provide the real name of the bride, as well as that of her place of employment and of her employers. The bride claimed that doing so was an intentional infliction of emotional stress and took the defendants to court.

The defendants, however, tried to have the case dismissed saying that there was a failure to state a cause of action for the lawsuit. However, that cause for a dismissal was rejected by the New York Supreme Court. 4. According to the case, this was not defamation for the simple fact that the remarks that caused the injury were "opinion." Matters of opinion cannot be used under defamation. However, the court approved a filing for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress. 5.

In the decision, the court states that further proceedings will be required because this tort necessitates a jury of the peers of the defendants to decide if the stringent requirements of this tort have been met. Specifically, the jury must decide if the actions and the remarks made by the defendants violated.