With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and an effective screening device for avoiding the unnecessary harassment of defendants by un-meritorious actions which threaten the free exercise of rights of speech.’ ” Mitchell v. Villien, 08-1470, p. 7 (La.App. 4 Cir. 8/26/09), 19 So.3d 557, 563 (quoting Kennedy v. Sheriff of East Baton Rouge, 05-1418, p. 25 (La.7/10/06), 935 So.2d 669, 686). This case, however, involves a private citizen suing a private citizen on a matter of private concern; "[hjere, the constitution arguably may not impose any restrictions.” Frank L. Maraist and Thomas C. Galligan, Jr., LOUISIANA TORT LAW § 19.02[8] (2004 ed.). 6 . Mr. Bandaries contends that there are disputed issues of fact as to the reason for Mr. Schmidt’s statements and the damages the statements allegedly caused. He points ou Alaska 2000) (<HOLDING>); Baskin v. Rogers, 229 Ga.App. 250, 493 S.E.2d

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 statements that insinuated that plaintiff was an adulteress were actionable as slander per se under missouri law
D: holding that statements that plaintiff had had an extramarital affair were defamatory per se
D.