What is the most “jealously” protected kind of speech, according to the court in this
case? (3 points)
The protected speech was “ugly bride.”
What court decided the case in the assignment? (2 points)
Here, defendants have not yet answered and thus have not taken a position which they now must change or forfeit a [**261] right in reliance upon the plaintiff's initial complaint. In short, defendants have not shown that they will suffer any prejudice in the event that the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint is granted.
Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for leave to serve an amended complaint is granted. In determining the defendants' motion to dismiss, the court will be assessing the plaintiff's amended complaint.
Briefly – state the facts of this case, using the information found in the case in
LexisNexis. (5 points)
The complaint alleges that on or about June 17, 1996, a bridal photograph of the plaintiff and her husband was published in the wedding section of the Daily Gazette, a newspaper published in the City of Schenectady, New York, along with several photographs of recent newlyweds. As set forth in the complaint: "[O]n or about June 17, 1996, at approximately 7:00 A.M. and for a portion [***3] of the broadcast that morning," the individual defendants (being a radio station and employees thereof) "broadcast offensive, vindictive, disparaging, derogatory, depreciatory, atrocious, contemptuous, [*288] derisive, contumelious, ridiculing, abusive, calumnious, scurrilous, demeaning and outrageous remarks concerning … the plaintiff's physical attractiveness and desirability, as well as her full name, her place of employment [being a competing radio station], her position of employment and the names of her supervisors and her relations with said supervisors." "[S]aid slanderous remarks were part of a 'routine' of the individual defendants called the 'Ugliest Bride Contest'."
During the "Ugliest Bride Contest", the individual defendants...