Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
with Tang’s assertion that the omitted portion of his statement “specifically rebuffs] the defamatory charge that [the] article imputed to [Tang].” Rather, this is but one interpretation depending on the listener’s point of view. In the absence of evidence that it omitted Tang’s remarks to portray his statements falsely, the First Amendment protects the Houston Chinese Press’s editorial choice regarding what material it included in the article. See id. Tang offered no evidence to controvert Wang’s testimony regarding his interpretation of Tang’s remarks. Nor has Tang offered sufficient evidence to show that Wang’s interpretation was not a plausible or reasonable one in light of the tenor of the press conference and the provocative nature of Tang’s analogy. See Cantu, 168 S.W.3d at 855 . Given Wang’s understanding of Tang’s
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding contract with ambiguous terms should not be dismissed on pleadings
B. holding that understandable misinterpretation of ambiguous facts does not show actual malice
C. holding that an ambiguous mention of an attorney is not a request for counsel
D. holding exclusion was not ambiguous
E. holding that mere surmise or suspicion of malice does not carry the probative force necessary to form the basis of a legal inference of malice
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.