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.

it's a secular holiday. it is and was a custom developed to recognize the ending of a time and a wish for a good future. the kind of kiss you exchange, if you are single, is intended to predict what kind of year you will have in the coming year.

it is saying good bye to the last year with all its ups and downs, and hello to the new year, with all its hopes and dreams.

because everyone tends to get their feelings hurt if they don't agree with something someone is doing and vice versa. it's a major issue that needs to be dealt with, especially in the christian society. everyone thinks that christians hate gay people, because it is a sin, and christians "just hate everyone who sins and every one is going to hell for sinning"(saying that all in a sarcastic tone but i'm just going to go ahead and tell you why everything with that type of view on christians is wrong.

#1. christians do not hate gay people. and if they do, then that is their own personal problem. christians are not supposed to hate anyone. if you hate a neighbor (or any person basically), then that is as if you are hating jesus.

#2. being gay is in fact a sin according to the holy bible. it is in genesis. and no, the fact that it is a sin, does not mean that god hates you. he is grieved that a person is sinning against his word, but he still loves that person. in fact, christians are supposed to love everyone. we are supposed to love our enemies, but hate the sin they are doing. we love you and respect you, but we do not agree with every decision you make, is basically what i'm trying to say.

hope this you ! (: