Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the bound ary lines” of a right-of-way a “street” does not control the constitutional forum analysis. Furthermore, even treating the median as “part of’ a public street, because Plaintiff seeks access only to that “part” of the street for the display of his Nativity scene, it is only that part of the venue that is determinative of the forum. “When speakers seek general access to public property, the forum encompasses that property. When speakers seek more limited access, however, we must take a more tailored approach to ascertaining the perimeters of [the relevant] forum within the confines of the government property at issue.” Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense and Educ. Fund, Inc., supra, 473 U.S. at 801, 105 S.Ct. at 3448. See also Helms v. Zubaty, 495 F.3d 252, 256 (6th Cir.2007) . Indeed, even public streets as a whole may
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that because plaintiffs speech occurred in the reception area of the judge executives office it was only the nature of that limited area and not the general public nature of fiscal court budding within which the office was located that was determinative of the forum
B. holding that the public use exception was not applicable because the injury to the tenants employee occurred in an area of the leased premises that was not open to the public but was used only by employees
C. holding that after the district court determined that the plaintiffs speech was protected the court was required to inform the jury of its ruling that knapps speech was constitutionally protected
D. holding that because public use of a beach was permissive the public was a licensee and as such could be excluded from the whole area at any time by the title owner
E. holding that the appropriate sanction was to require the defendant to disclose the nature of the agreement with the witness
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.