Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
CONSTITUTIONAL PRIOR RESTRAINT ON EXPRESSION? The Supreme Court in Freedman outlined three procedural safeguards that a prior restraint on protected expression must contain to obviate the dangers of censorship: (1) the burden of going to court to suppress the speech, and the burden of proof once in court, must rest with the government; (2) any restraint prior to a judicial determination may only be for a specified brief time period in order to preserve the status quo; and (3) an avenue for prompt judicial review of the censor’s decision must be available. Freedman, 380 U.S. at 58-59, 85 S.Ct. at 739. At least some of the Freedman requirements apply to content-neutral regulations such as section 2.51. See FW/PBS, 493 U.S. at 226-29, 110 S.Ct. at 605-06 (O’Connor, J., plurality opinion) ; see also id. at 238-39, 110 S.Ct. at 611
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the court must assume on summary judgment that the nondecisionmakerharasser relayed the plaintiffs complaints about sexual harassment to the decisionmaker even though both the harasser and the decisionmaker denied this fact the harasser was present at the meeting in which it was decided that plaintiff would be terminated he had an incentive to pass on this information and his credibility was in question as to other matters
B. holding contentneutral licensing scheme was an unconstitutional prior restraint because it violated the second freedman safeguard  adequate limits on the time that the decisionmaker has to issue the license
C. holding that a contentneutral law requiring professional fundraisers to obtain a license before soliciting donations was subject to the procedural safeguards of freedman
D. holding that liability attaches if the decisionmaker merely rubber stamps the recommendation of the retaliating supervisor or if the retaliating supervisor dupes the decisionmaker into taking action or otherwise controls the decisionmaker
E. holding that where a licensing scheme is facially invalid for lack of procedural safeguards or unbridled discretion a person faced with such an unconstitutional licensing law may ignore it and engage with impunity in the exercise of the right of free expression for which the law purports to require a license
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.