With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". v. Juneau Empire, 891 P.2d 829, 835 (Alaska 1995) (citations omitted). [3] 3. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 351, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974) (emphasis added). 4 . See, eg., Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 246 n. 3, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 LEd.2d 202 (1986). 5 . See, eg., Carr v. Forbes, Inc., 259 F.3d 273, 278 (4th Cir.2001). 6 . In Mount Juneau Enterprises we explained that '"'[al public controversy is not simply a matter of interest to the public, but rather 'a real dispute, the outcome of which affects the general public or some segment of it in an appreciable way.'" 891 P.2d at 836 (quoting Waldbaum v. Fairchild Publ'ns, Inc., 62 S.E.2d 548, 557 (1996) (internal quotations omitted)); Nehls v. Hillsdale College, 178 F.Supp.2d 771, 778 (E.D.Mich.2001) (<HOLDING>). 12 . Hutchinson, 443 U.S. at 135, 99 S.Ct.

A: holding that article ii section 18 of the state constitution does not protect an individuals right to possess a short shotgun for selfdefense because the states prohibition of short shotguns is a reasonable exercise of its police power
B: holding that comparison between plaintiff africanameriean law student who was expelled for academic reasons and white student with psychiatric disorder was like comparing apples with oranges
C: holding that expelled student whose role in controversy merited only short blurb in a nine page magazine article did not assume position of prominence
D: holding that article iii requires a live controversy at every stage of litigation
C.