2010) (citing Gorman, supra, and Arnold v. Lutz, 141 Iowa 596, 598, 120 N.W. 121, 121 (1909)). In the McFarland case, the court noted that “[although the Arnold decision was handed down over a century ago, the court has no doubt that its holding remains as viable today as the day it was rendered given that a number of other states continue to view allegations of adultery as defamatory per se.” Applying these principles, we find, agreeing with Mr. Bandaries, that Mr. Schmidt’s statements, accusing Mr. Bandaries of adultery, were defamatory per se. The second element a plaintiff must prove to establish a defamation cause of action is an unprivileged publication to a third party. Sommer v. State, Dep’t of Transp. & Dev., 97-1929, p. 26 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/29/00), 758 So.2d 923, 939 (<HOLDING>). Mr. Bandaries avers in his petition that
holding that speech must be a threat or coercion to be actionable holding that an actionable  20a claim must be preceded by an actionable primary violation under  10b recognizing that we must give meaning to all the words in the claims holding that to be actionable the words must be communicated or published to someone other than the plaintiff recognizing that the court must give meaning to all the words in the claims