Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
” Town of Milford v. Boyd, 434 Mass. 754, 759-60 (2001), citing Gillette Co. v. Commissioner of Revenue, 425 Mass. 670, 674 (1997), in turn quoting Polaroid Corp. v. Commissioner of Revenue, 393 Mass. 490, 497 (1984) (stating that “words of a statute must be construed with other statutory language and the general statutory plan”). In other words, in order to be consistent with the statutory scheme as a whole of G.L.c. 207, it is necessary that §§11 and 12 be read together 05, 112-13 (2d Cir. 1985) (concluding that a zoning ordinance’s likely infringement of the plaintiffs First Amendment rights constituted irreparable harm where the city’s threat to enforce the ordinance operated as a prior restraint on adult bookstores); T&D Video v. City of Revere, 423 Mass. 577, 582 (1996) . See also, Wright & Miller, 11 Federal
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an infringement on the right to vote necessarily causes irreparable harm
B. holding that even a temporary deprivation of first amendment rights constitutes irreparable harm
C. holding that the movant had to establish both of the first two factors ie likelihood of success and irreparable harm to receive a preliminary injunction
D. holding that a party who can show a significant risk of irreparable harm has demonstrated that the harm is not speculative
E. holding that plaintiffs necessarily demonstrated irreparable harm because they showed a substantial likelihood that their first amendment rights had been infringed
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.