Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with actual malice. Actual malice means knowledge of, or reckless disregard for, the falsify of a statement. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279-80, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686, 706 (1964). Lawyers who make derogatory remarks about judges are similarly protected from civil or criminal liability unless actual malice is shown. Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 74, 13 L. Ed. 2d 125, 132 (1964). However, these principles only offer immunity from a civil suit for damages, not from other forms of discipline. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 428-29, 47 L. Ed. 2d 128, 142 (1976). The First Amendment does not afford protection to the utterer for all statements made. See e.g. Spivey, 345 N.C. at 414-15, 480 S.E.2d at 698-99 . Judge Hobgood’s order contained the following
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding police officer is a public official
B. holding that a subcontractors lack of a license under the act does not bar a claim for indemnity or contribution by the contractor in a suit by the homeowner against the contractor because the public policy embodied in the act and berenter is to protect the public not unlicensed contractors
C. holding that the first amendment does not protect the use of racial invective by a public official against a member of the public in a bar
D. holding that public use of a beach was presumed to have originated by permission and to have continued as a license until some act  of the public or public official asserted the use to be exercised as a matter of right rather than privilege
E. holding that the first amendment does not protect true threats against the president
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.