According to the ruling in New York Times v. United States, which best describes what the government had to prove for its
censorship of the New York Times to have been acceptable?
The articles would have had to indisputably threaten national security
The articles would have had to be harshly critical of the military.
The articles would have had to reveal classified information
The articles would have had to support the enemy in wartime.

In the New York Times V. the United States, the US would have had to describe that the The articles would have had to indisputably threaten national security.

The reason why this would be accepted is due to the importance of peace tranquility and unity in a nation.

If the article that the New York Times released was something that could affect the security of the nation, then the government did everyone a favor by censoring it.

Read more on the censorship here: link

The articles would have had to indisputably threaten national security best describes what the government had to prove for its censorship of the New York Times to have been acceptable.

Option: A

Explanation:

The ruling between New York and United States were unconstitutional at great extent. There were contradiction in the majority of issues. In this case the freedom of public was extended and the power of government reduced at its level. Press got sufficient freedom to act accordingly whereas the power of government for interrupting press was seized.

Government had to prove for its censorship of the New York Times the articles would have had to indisputably threaten national security. In this way the censorship would be acceptable.

evaluate the extent to which the seven years' war (french and indian war, 1754–1763) marked a turning point in american relations with great britain, analyzing what changed and what stayed the same from the period before the war to the period after it.

cornfield (filler filler filler filler ignore this filler filler)