Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
477 F.Supp. 1210, 1218 (E.D.Wis.1979), the court addressed a vagueness challenge to a provision prohibiting the use of sound amplification devices in a manner that “unreasonably interfere(s) with the use and enjoyment of the park or parkway by the public,” and held that the language was not excessively indefinite. And, the state supreme court unanimously upheld against a vagueness challenge a City of Madison ordinance prohibiting the making of “any noise tending to unreasonably disturb the peace and quiet of persons in the vicinity thereof.” Baumann, 162 Wis.2d at 665, 470 N.W.2d 296. The court stated that the reasonable-person standard was “one that has been relied f Charlotte, 706 F.2d 486, 489 (4th Cir.1983) (same); People v. Fitzgerald, 194 Colo. 415, 573 P.2d 100, 102-03 (1978) ; State v. Linares, 232 Conn. 345, 655 A.2d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding factor b is not unconstitutionally vague
B. holding the term lewdness undefined in the iowa abatement statute to be vague
C. holding that term unreasonably loud is not impermissibly vague
D. holding that unreasonable noise is not vague because unreasonable denotes objectivity based on circumstances
E. holding that term unreasonable noise was not vague
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.