You will be given a definition of a task first, then some input of the task.
In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision. Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

and honor, and integrity, and I resent this very much.!! You are In Contempt of EVERYTHING that I represent, and standby, and believe. OFFICIALLY: you were NEVER the "president" of anything.!! In an non-jury trial in November 1990, the district court found the defendant guilty of violating section 871 under an objective reasonable person standard for having made the above and other similar comments. The Third Circuit affirmed the judgment of conviction. After adopting the objective reasonable person standard already used by this Circuit, the Third Circuit analyzed a number of factors to reach its conclusion that the defendant's comments were not protected political hyperbole like the comments made in Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705, 707, 89 S.Ct. 1399, 22 L.Ed.2d 664 (1969) (<HOLDING>). These factors are helpful to this Court in
Holding statements: (A) holding utterance that if they ever make me carry a rifle upon being drafted into the us military the first man i want to get in my sights is lbj was merely a kind of very crude offensive method of stating a political opposition to the president and was thus protected by the first amendment (B) holding that 18year old vietnam protestor who stated if they ever make me carry a rifle the first man i want to get in my sights is lbj did not violate 871 because the comment constituted political hyperbole protected by the first amendment (C) holding that with the commands of the first amendment clearly in mind a comment that the first man i want to get in my sights is lbj was political hyperbole which did not constitute a willful threat against the president (D) holding that independent contractor claiming termination of contract because of political affiliation not protected by first amendment (E) holding that the following statement conditional in nature and made at a political rally was not a true threat if they ever make me carry a rifle the first man i want to get in my sights is lbj
Output:
holding utterance that if they ever make me carry a rifle upon being drafted into the us military the first man i want to get in my sights is lbj was merely a kind of very crude offensive method of stating a political opposition to the president and was thus protected by the first amendment