Subsequently, other courts have held that plaintiffs cannot evade constitutional and state law privileges and defenses for speech by recasting their defamation claims as different theories of tort. See, e.g., Yohe v. Nugent, 321 F.3d 35, 44 (1st Cir. 2003) ("[A] plaintiff cannot evade the protections of the fair report privilege merely by re-labeling his claim."); Tierney v. Vahle, 304 F.3d 734, 743 (7th Cir. 2002) ("To evade the constitutional limitations on defamation suits by charging the alleged defamer with participation in a conspiracy, which is to say just by relabeling the tort, cannot be permitted."); Chaiken v. VV Pub. Corp., 119 F.3d 1018, 1034 (2nd Cir. 1997) ("[T]he Chaikens cannot avoid the obstacles involved in a defamation claim by simply relabeling it as a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress."); Brown v. Hearst Corp., 54 F.3d 21, 27 (1st Cir. 1995) ("it is not imaginable that [a false light claim] could escape the same constitutional constraint as [a] defamation claim"); Beverly Hills Foodland, Inc. v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 655, 39 F.3d 191, 196 (8th Cir. 1994) ([T]he malice standard required for actionable defamation claims during labor disputes must equally be met for a tortious interference claim based on the same conduct or statements. This is only logical as a plaintiff may not avoid the protection afforded by the Constitution ... merely by the use of creative pleading."); see also Correllas v. Viveiros, 410 Mass. 314, 324 (1991) ("A privilege which protected an individual from liability for defamation would be of little value if the individual were subject to liability under a different theory of tort.").