With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Lawyer Discipline v. Benton, 980 S.W.2d 425 (Tex.1998), the Supreme Court of Texas noted “it is well established in the law that post-verdic Cir.1993) (finding no constitutional error in limiting defendant’s post-verdict access to jurors, observing “jurors have a right to go home at the end of the trial ... secure in the belief that they will not be harassed and they will not be questioned”). Section 720.4 is clearly directed at preventing harassing contact with jurors. Even if such contact was protected by the First Amendment, the State’s interest in preserving the integrity and fairness of the jury system justifies the limitation on protected speech imposed by section 720.4. See generally Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 571, 62 S.Ct. 766, 769, 86 L.Ed. 1031, 1035 (1942) (<HOLDING>). We conclude the statute does not infringe

A: holding the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances
B: holding that a road not open to the public at all times was not a highway
C: holding that an englishonly policy which applied at all times to all employees regardless of occupation or activity may have created a hostile work environment
D: holding that a determination of unfair discrimination requires a court to consider all aspects of the case and the totality of all the circumstances
A.