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.'

elizabeth loftus conducted a study to observe the reliability of eyewitnesses during the 1970s. their baseline was to define how accurate are the recollections of eyewitnesses.

her studies do not support the use of eyewitness. loftus mentions in her work that we are not required to recall some experiences, meaning that rarely an individual eyewitness testimony is trustworthy. a good example is presented in her work, where all individuals watched a video and were than asked "about how fast were the cars going when they hit/smash? ". the testimonies changed based on the word she used to make the question (hit or smash), proving the fragility.

imagine me knowing the answer