There has been another school shooting, this one in the Salt Marsh High School near Great Bend, Kansas. Three students were killed by a 13-year-old fellow student, Trevor Wild, who entered the chemistry lab and fired randomly at class members with a shotgun. The press descended on Great Bend and interviewed numerous students and the parents of the dead students. All condemned the shooting; most said the easy access young people in the area have to guns was part of the problem. But Matt Stover, the father of one of the dead students disagreed when he was interviewed in mid-March by TV reporters outside his home the day of the shootings. Stover said guns had nothing to do with the killings, and that if Trevor Wild had not had a shotgun he would have probably killed his son, Michael Stover, with a knife or a club or even a rock. The problem was Trevor Wild, not his armament.

In May, gun control advocates began to put pressure on the Kansas legislature to adopt stricter gun laws. The National Rifle Association sought to block this legislation by scheduling a series of rallies at gun clubs in various communities in Kansas. Several Second Amendment advocates spoke at the rallies. Matt Stover was recruited and spoke at several of the gatherings, repeating his views that guns were not the problem and had not caused the death of his boy. Only Trevor Wild was to blame. The debate between the two sides quickly became acrimonious.

An editorial was published in the Kansas Monthly, a state magazine, that sharply attacked the NRA and the rallies it was holding. The editorial said the gun advocates were raising bogus issues. It then went on to say this about Matt Stover:

In the immediate wake of the Salt Marsh school shootings, Matt Stover told television viewers that the easy access to guns had nothing to do with his son's death. That was a stupid remark, but we wrote it off to the confusion any grieving parent would be suffering in similar circumstances. But now Stover has become the poster child for the state's gun nuts and the big bucks express of the NRA. How Stover can continue to argue the fact that a 13-year-old boyyes, boycan take a shotgun to school and kill three people has nothing to do with the murder of those three kids is irrational. No, it's insane. Yet every day we see another insipid remark from Stover quoted in the press and given a special credibility because he is the father of one of the slain students. Any other jerk who said this would be properly ignored. It's time for the newspaper, TV stations, and the rest of us to ignore Matt Stover. He no longer deserves to be heard.

Stover sued the magazine for libel.

a. What five elements must Stover prove to sustain his libel action?

b. The Kansas Monthly claims that Stover is a public person. Stover argues that he is not, that he simply responded to press inquiries about the death of his son, and that he has been bootstrapped into the spotlight. Which argument is correct?

c. The Kansas Monthly argues that its editorial is protected opinion. An opinion cannot be libelous; it is protected by the First Amendment. How will the court evaluate the material and rule in the case?