With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the connection between plaintiff and the fictional character. However, by relying on these alleged similarities, which are not found within the four corners of the allegedly libelous article, the majority contravenes established case law in this area. If additional facts are required to show the identity of the allegedly defamed person, then the statement cannot be said to be defamatory on its face. Our appellate court has repeatedly held that " 'the injurious character of the statement *** cannot be considered so obvious as to justify dispensing with proof of actual damages’ [z.e., the statement cannot be libelous per se] where additional explanation is required to establish a person’s identification with the publication.” Schaffer v. Zekman, 196 Ill. App. 3d 727, 732-33 (1990) (<HOLDING>), quoting Moore v. Streit, 181 Ill. App. 3d

A: holding statements regarding plaintiffs unsatisfactory job performance not defamatory per se
B: holding that news broadcast which fell within several of the historical categories for per se defamation was not defamatory per se where plaintiffs identity was not shown on its face
C: holding that per se statutory rule is not permissible under fourth amendment
D: holding such agreements to be per se illegal
B.