Hello, can you please write a reply to the bold message plz. I will make sure to give you a up vote.

Yes, in this case this is defamation. The first amendment protects rights to an opinion only if its false. It's not safe if it isn't correct. Another situation can be where a group can be informed that the assertions made are mis leading due to the use of loose, figurative or hyperbolic vocabulary. As for the second question, yes, it would have made a difference that she was employed by another competing radio station. In this particular case, the radio station could be found liable that the agents' action was meant to benefit the company and render the corporation liable for the agent's actions.

This was the question that the above person answers.

**Two disc jockeys at WPYX-FM radio in Albany, New York, were sued for intentional infliction of emotional 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 wedding pictures in the daily newspaper. Listeners who had seen the photos of brides 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-Hilders 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 opinion. The court did hold, however, that a suit for intentional 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)]**