Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Frederick Schauer, Categories and the First Amendment: A Play in Three Acts, 34 Vand.L.Rev. 265, 267-82 (1981), cited in R.A.V., — U.S. at -, 112 S.Ct. at 2563 (Stevens, J., concurring in the result). Congress has passed numerous laws that proscribe threats. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 871 (threats against the president and successors to the presidency); id. § 876 (threats by mail to injure or kidnap); id. § 1513 (retaliatory threats against informants and witnesses); id. § 115 (threats to assault, kidnap, or murder federal officials). These statutes have been consistently upheld as constitutional, despite the fact that they criminalize utterances because of their expressive content. See Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705, 707-08, 89 S.Ct. 1399, 1400-01, 22 L.Ed.2d 664 (1969) (per curiam) ; United States v. Varani, 435 F.2d 758, 762
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that threats to inflict financial or personal harm are not true threats where no ones personal safety is threatened
B. holding that threats and fighting words are removed  from the scope of the first amendment
C. holding that the first amendment does not protect true threats against the president
D. holding that where the first amendment does not protect a certain activity there can be no first amendment right of association to engage in that activity
E. holding first amendment does not protect nonexpressive conduct
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.