With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". threaten the employee-public servant. Similar pressure motivated by social issues likewise would not be covered by the proposed rule. As in the case of political pressure, I express no opinion on whether a clear mandate of public policy would cover that situation. The prospect of picketing in front of the employer’s place of business, threatening to withhold patronage, and other forms of economic pressure to effectuate the social goals of those protesting, should not be lightly dismissed. A rule prohibiting discharge might be totally ineffective: the protests and demonstrations would continue. Further, it might be unthinkable and perhaps unconstitutional to attempt to stop them. Cf. Madsen v. Women’s Health Ctr., Inc., 512 U.S. -,-, 114 S.Ct. 2516, 2530, 129 L.Ed.2d 593, 614-15 (1994) (<HOLDING>); Horizon Health Ctr. v. Felicissimo, 135 N.J.

A: holding unconstitutional a statute prohibiting judges running for election from expressing a view on political issues during campaigns
B: holding unconstitutional an ordinance prohibiting opprobious language
C: holding unconstitutional order prohibiting antiabortion protesters from demonstrating in front of family planning climes
D: recognizing that an order denying a motion to modify a family court order where the motion is based on changed factual or legal circumstances is appealable as a special order after final judgment
C.