"The publications in the instant case are fair comment and criticism on a matter of public interest and as such are not actionable. The essential elements of fair comment in order to be deemed not actionable are:(1) that the publication is an opinion;(2) that it relates not to an individual but to his acts;(3) that it is fair, namely that the reader can see the factual basis for the

"Plaintiff's theory seems to be that he is a member of a group of persons—namely, those who participate in and support vivisection, and that any words written of and concerning this group are, in law, written of and concerning the plaintiff. However, such a theory may not be applied unless the publication can be said with certainty to include every individual within the …

We noted with approval the statement of the Illinois innocent construction rule: "The language must receive an innocent construction when susceptible of such interpretation and cannot by innuendo be extended beyond a reasonable construction."

The courts have also, especially in libel cases, investigated the plaintiff's position to determine whether he has a legitimate call upon the court for protection in light of his prior activities and means of self-defense.

Although this court has not heretofore expressed the rule, it has been adopted and applied by our Appellate Courts and by Federal Courts sitting in Illinois

The law is clear that absent such a showing, defamation of a class or group does not form the basis of a cause of action on the part of an individual member of the group.

An action was dismissed when the court found as being insufficiently descriptive of the plaintiff, an illustration depicting the hands, a leg and a foot of a vivisectionist, the class of which was attacked as being animal torturers

Lower courts have found the existence of public interest for fair comment purposes even where the subject matter was neither a creative work nor a public official's conduct.

The matter must be construed in the sense which readers of common and reasonable understanding would ascribe to it, and where language is unambiguous and capable of only one meaning, it presents a question of law to be determined by the court as to whether or not it is libelous per se.