With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the issue becomes what to do about it. Plaintiffs in public forum cases generally seek a court order giving them access to the public place, but Bennett has not sought injunctive relief nor claimed that she is entitled to operate a major event on the Courthouse Plaza in the future. She simply asks us to remand the case to the trial court for a determination of damages. Under the facts of this case, however, we cannot find as a matter of law that Bennett is entitled to damages. ¶ 30 Although we find Bennett’s rights under the First Amendment were violated, “no compensatory damages [can] be awarded for a violation of [those] right[s] absent proof of actual injury.” Memphis Cmty. Sch. Dist. v. Stachura, 477 U.S. 299, 308-11, 106 S.Ct. 2537, 91 L.Ed.2d 249 (1986) (emphasis omitted) (<HOLDING>). Bennett presents a plausible argument that

A: holding that damages based on the abstract value of constitutional rights are not a permissible element of compensatory damages in action under civil rights act of 1871
B: holding that punitive damages do not need to be proportional to compensatory damages
C: holding that when compensatory damages are nominal a much higher ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages can be contemplated
D: holding that damages based on the abstract value or importance of constitutional rights are not a permissible element of compensatory damages in such cases
D.