Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
notes that pimp can be used as an insult, but can also mean “cool.” See The Online Slang Dictionary, at http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/ wrader/slang/p.html# top (visited July 29, 2002). See also http://www.slang-site.eom/slang/P.html (visited July 29, 2002) (defining “pimp” variously as “when complimenting a person on their mastery of the subject matter;” “a headhunter, recruiter, or account executive;” “a cigarette filled with tobacco or anything else you can smoke;” and to “plug, promote”). While Plaintiffs are correct that their prescribed meaning is not unreasonable, this assertion misses the point. In First Amendment jurisprudence, it is not the meaning prescribed by or the effect on the listener that controls. See e.g. Hustler Magazine, 485 U.S. 46, 108 S.Ct. 876, 99 L.Ed.2d 41 ; NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding in a fcra case that plaintiffs may not rely on mere  conclusory statements  rather they must  sufficiently articulate  true demonstrable emotional distress  including the factual context in which the emotional distress arose evidence corroborating the testimony of the plaintiff the nexus between the conduct of the defendant and the emotional distress the degree of such mental distress mitigating circumstances if any physical injuries suffered due to the emotional distress medical attention resulting from the emotional duress psychiatric or psychological treatment and the loss of income if any
B. holding that a tort claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is distinct from a claim for emotional distress damages under the employment discrimination statute
C. holding emotional distress is a distinct claim from wrongful death
D. holding that expert testimony is not required to corroborate a claim for emotional distress
E. holding first amendment does not permit emotional distress claim for ad parody
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.