Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of a personal attack in a Council meeting and not on the expressive content of the personal attack. Scroggins v. City of Topeka, Kan., 2 F.Supp.2d at 1371. On the other hand, two district court cases out of California have concluded that a very similar restriction to Section 5Ff were facially invalid viewpoint-based speech restrictions. In Baca v. Moreno Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 936 F.Supp. at 725, Judge Timlin struck down a policy providing that “[n]o oral or written presentation in open session shall include charges or complaints against any employee of the District, regardless of whether or not the employee is identified by name.” 936 F.Supp. at 725. Judge Timlin wrote: District’s policy clearly contains content-based prohibitions on speech, despite defendant 713 (C.D.Cal.l993). Baca v. Moreno Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 936
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the plaintiffs due process challenge to a city ordinance was barred because it was inextricably intertwined with a statecourt ruling that plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the ordinance
B. recognizing that the first amendment prohibits laws where the state seeks to achieve its policy objectives through the indirect means of restraining certain speech by certain speakers
C. holding that an ordinance granting greater first amendment rights to speakers who support the human services objectives of the city was impermissibly contentbased
D. holding city ordinance preempted by state law because ordinance prohibited act specifically allowed under state law
E. holding city could not enforce through administrative adjudication a city ordinance limiting vehicle weight
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.