Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
we reach the obvious conclusion that vanity plates are an unlikely means by which to engage in meaningful “assembly and debate,” Perry Educ. Ass’n, 460 U.S. at 45, 103 S.Ct. 948, or other expressive activity. Because vanity plates are physically restricted by size and shape and by the state’s interests, including that of vehicle identification, vanity plates are a highly limited and extremely constrained means of expression. The very character of license plates also suggests that they are not a designated public forum. In light of all of the circumstances described above, we hold that Vermont has not intended to designate, and has not designated, its vanity plates as a public forum. Cf. In re Denial of the Application for the Custom Plates, 170 Or.App. 542, 13 P.3d 531 (2000) (en banc) . But see Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc. v.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that government is not required to retain open nature of designated public forum
B. holding that a state statute authorizing the rejection of vanity plates deemed contrary to public policy violated the first amendment because it granted unfettered discretion to state officials
C. holding that a vanity plate is not a public forum
D. holding that a vanity plate is a designated public forum where a state allows groups to place various slogans and designs on license plates
E. recognizing that where plaintiff is from the forum state and defendant is from an alternate forum each forum can claim a connection to one of the parties
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.