Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
no reasonable reader would interpret the photograph of the Knievels as a serious allegation of criminal wrongdoing. We acknowledge, like the district court did, that taken in isolation and given a literal interpretation, ESPN’s suggestion that Evel is a pimp is “sufficiently factual to be susceptible of being proved true or false.” See Underwager, 69 F.3d at 366. But we assess the meaning of the word in the context in which it was used. Because the caption cannot reasonably be interpreted literally in this context, the fact that its literal interpretation could be proven true or false is immaterial. The Knievels correctly point out that the fact that a statement is an attempt at humor does not immunize the speaker against liability for defamation. See Polygram, 216 Cal.Rptr. at 260  (quoting Arno v. Stewart, 245 Cal.App.2d 955,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that it is not
B. holding that the jocular intent of the publisher will not relieve him from liability if it is reasonable to not understand the utterance as a joke
C. holding that if a declaratory judgment will not end the controversy it is not proper
D. recognizing the holding in webb and stating operation of the plant for the city by a separate agency does not relieve the city from liability
E. holding other lease provisions evidenced intent to relieve tenant from fire damage liability
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.