For prior restraint to apply, what must the government prove about the speech in question? The speech must be libelous. The speech must present a general threat. The speech must present a clear and identifiable danger. The speech must be offensive.

Government, if it wants to prove any prior restraint to be applied the speech that the government declares is presented in a clear and identifiable danger. So, the correct option is C.

The restrictions that a government wants to apply can be portrayed to the general public in very clear and identifiable manner that a threat is really a concerned matter.

Hence, the correct option is C that the speech of the government has to be clearly identifying the danger about prior restraint that has to be applied for control of situations.

To know more about government speech, click the link below.

link

- The speech must present a clear and identifiable danger.

Explanation:

'Prior restraint' is characterized as the government's authority to suppress or prohibit the forms of expression like speech, writing, art, media prior to being published or broadcasted if it poses a threat to national security or community.

The First Amendment of the United States constitution provides this liability to the government to impose censorship or judicially suppress the forms of expression like speech is evaluated or restricted before it is presented in order to give priority to national security and safety of the citizens of the country.

In reference to the above definition, the government is liable to prove the speech in question only when 'the speech offers a clear and identifiable danger to national security, community, or citizens.'

is this from a story?

if so, can you tell which one?

~courtney

is there answer choices?