per se or not actionable per se. See Holtzscheiter v. Thomson Newspapers, Inc., 332 S.C. 502, 506 S.E.2d 497 (1998). 4 . We also reject Kennedy’s argument that the context in which the statement was made cannot be considered when determining if it is defamatory. Kennedy also misguidedly argues that if the context of the words is considered, then the statement cannot, as a matter of law, be actionable per se. Kennedy has cited no authority for this proposition. To the contrary, the law in South Carolina allows the context of the words themselves and the circumstances under which the words are spoken to be considered in determining whether there is a defamatoiy meaning and whether it is actionable per se. Herring v. Lawrence Warehouse Co., 222 S.C. 226, 235, 72 S.E.2d 453, 455 (1952) (<HOLDING>); Lily v. Belk’s Dept. Store, 178 S.C. 278, 182
holding under south carolina law where words themselves do not impute the commission of a crime the juiy may consider surrounding circumstances to determine whether statement was defamatory because it charged the commission of a crime holding that theft from the person is not a crime of violence holding that when considered in light of circumstances employers statement that employee was short was clearly defamatory and actionable per se because it alleged the commission of a crime namely theft holding statement not defamatory as matter of law that does not charge plaintiff with commission of a crime violation of any law or contract or with any unethical acts and business dealings holding that petit theft is per se a crime involving dishonesty or false statement under section 906101 and disapproving of the practice of conducting a trial within a trial to determine whether an affirmative misstatement or misrepresentation of fact was involved in the commission of the crime the conviction of which is sought to be introduced for impeachment purposes