Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
a single yard sign advocating the opposing position — for example, “Oppose School Vouchers,” or “Abolish the National Guard.” The Supreme Court has “frequently condemned such discrimination among different users of the same medium for expression,” which is another form of content-based speech regulation. Mosley, 408 U.S. at 96, 92 S.Ct. 2286; see also First Nat’l Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 784-85, 98 S.Ct. 1407, 55 L.Ed.2d 707 (1978) (“In the realm of protected speech, the legislature is constitutionally disqualified from dictating the subjects about which persons may speak and the speakers who may address a public issue.” (emphasis added)). Cf. Ackerley Communications of Mass., Inc. v. City of Somerville, 878 F.2d 513, 518 (1st Cir.1989) (striking down 0 (8th Cir.1995) . In short, because some types of signs are
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an ordinance exempting certain signs from a general sign ban was an unconstitutional contentbased restriction on speech
B. holding that strict scrutiny applies to a prior restraint enforcing a contentbased restriction on speech in a traditional public forum
C. holding that it may not
D. holding that prohibiting external illumination of political signs while allowing it for other signs was an unconstitutional contentbased restriction since the message on the sign determines whether or not it may be externally illuminated
E. holding that an arbitration agreement enforceable against party who signed the agreement even where the other party did not sign it because generally it is enough that the party against whom the contract is sought to be enforced signs it
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.