With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 55 F.3d 1430, 1438 (9th Cir. 1995) (“It follows that statements impugning the integrity of a judge may not be punished unless they are capable of being proved true or false ....”) And no such conclusion would be possible here. Contrary to the Virgin Islands Supreme Court’s characterization, Kendall’s remarks cannot be reasonably interpreted as “blatantly accusing], without proof, the Justices ... of gross dereliction of their sworn duties and of committing illegal acts.” Kendall’s statements were nothing more than “rhetorical hyperbole” using language in a “loose, figurative sense” and therefore cannot be interpreted as asserting actual facts about the Justices. Nat’l Ass’n of Letter Carriers v. Austin, 418 U.S. 264, 284-85, 94 S. Ct. 2770, 41 L. Ed. 2d 745 (1974); see also id. at 286 (<HOLDING>); Greenbelt Coop. Publ’g Ass’n v. Bresler, 398

A: holding that a union officials comments may be used to infer the object of union activity
B: holding union members state law claims for defamation against union preempted
C: holding that a union newsletters description of a scab as a traitor could not be construed as a factual assertion
D: recognizing that union members interests are adequately represented by the union
C.