For prior restraint to apply, what must the government prove about the speech in question?

The speech must present a clear and identifiable danger.

"Prior restraint" is defined by the Legal Information Institute as "government action that prohibits speech or other expression before the speech happens."  For the government to take such measures--blocking a form of speech or communication before it is allowed to happen--the form of speech must be such that it would clearly pose a threat of extreme danger to the community -- or might cause severe risks to national security.  An example of the second sort of "prior restraint" claim happened in 1971, when the US government tried to block the New York Times and the Washington Post from publishing classified documents which were known as "The Pentagon Papers," regarding government handling of the Vietnam War.  In that case, the Supreme Court decided, in New York Times Company v. United States, that the government's concern for security did not override the 1st Amendment rights of the news media to publish the information which they had received. The Court did not agree that the release of the government information would cause inevitable, specific, immediate danger to the United States.   So you can see, proving the need for "prior restraint" is a very high bar to get across, and 1st Amendment rights usually prevail.

For prior restraint to apply, the government must prove that the speech is clear and an identifiable danger.

The term ''prior restraint'' connotes 'an early limit or a given restriction', which implies the necessary adjustment to a particular speech or expression needed for its presentation.

Further Explanation

The prior restraint is, therefore, defined as an expurgated review and restriction of  a speech, art, writing, expressions and media by the government or authority, just before it is being presented to the public. This prior restraint created some forms of inconveniences. why?

Because, the use of the prior restraint assumes a position of threat; to the community,to the citizens, to the national security of the country.

In the US, the history of portrait restraint is seen as a form of oppression or a cruel exercise of power, especially to the founding fathers when they were under the British rule. The founding father used languages in the first amendment of the US.Constitution like:  ''freedom of speech'' and ''freedom of the press''.Those were words that were against the democratic principle as felt by the Great Britain, dating back to the era where the United states of America got ruled by the British.

Another example is the New York times and Washington post of 1975, where the US. government made all effort to prevent the publishing of Pentagon Papers that showed how the government handled the Vietnam war. it is clear here that the government identified an imminent danger to the united states if it was released.

LEARN MORE:

KEYWORDS:

union blockade

explanation:

the union blockade in the american civil war was a naval strategy by the united states to prevent the confederacy from trading.

the blockade was proclaimed by president abraham lincoln in april 1861, and required the monitoring of 3,500 miles (5,600 km) of atlantic and gulf coastline, including 12 major ports, notably new orleans and mobile. those blockade runners fast enough to evade the union navy could only carry a small fraction of the supplies needed. they were operated largely by british citizens, making use of neutral ports such as havana, nassau and bermuda. the union commissioned around 500 ships, which destroyed or captured about 1,500 blockade runners over the course of the war.

the answer is to stop cheating on plato