Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
nonpublic forum, we have little trouble concluding that the Park Service Regulations are “viewpoint neutral and reasonable in light of the purpose [of] the forum.” Marlin v. D.C. Bd. of Elections and Ethics, 236 F.3d 716, 719 (D.C.Cir.2001) (citation and quotation marks omitted). The Regulations plainly do not discriminate on the basis of viewpoint, but rather prohibit disruptive speech regardless of its message. Oberwetter argues that the government engages in viewpoint discrimination by hosting its own official birthday ceremony in the Memorial while excluding her celebratory dance. This argument fails because the government is free to establish venues for the exclusive expression of its own viewpoint. See Pleasant Grove v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460, 129 S.Ct. 1125, 172 L.Ed.2d 853 (2009) ; Johanns v. Livestock Mktg. Ass’n, 544 U.S.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the state is obligated to pay property owners when it regulates private property under its police power in such a manner that the regulation effectively deprives the owner of the economically viable use of that property
B. holding that a private association could not erect a memorial on public property without consent of the governing authority that the location manner and design of statues is within the discretion of the governing authorities of the city of new orleans and that the city of new orleans can require removal of monuments located on public property
C. holding that it is not
D. holding that when the government erects a monument on public property it is not obligated to allow other monuments expressing alternative viewpoints
E. holding that when the government acts to enforce public rights the mere fact that the government has no pecuniary interest in the controversy is not sufficient to exclude it from the courts
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.