In new york times versus sullivan the supreme court ruled that statements about public figures are examples of libel only when they are made with malice and reckless disregard for the truth

It allows people the freedom to criticize public officials.

Explanation:

This question is incomplete. The complete question is the following:

In New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court ruled that statements about public figures are examples of libel only when they are made with malice and and reckless disregard for the truth. How does this ruling support a healthy democracy?

This ruling was an extremely important one for our country, as it contributed to the strengthening of our democracy. This ruling stated that, while malice and reckless disregard for the truth cannot be tolerated, simple criticism of public officials can be part of our democracy. This supports freedom of speech, as well as freedom of the press, and contributes to holding our leaders accountable.

a. because the u.s. was the leading with the most technology, economy, etc. also was teamed with other allies witch boosted the economy and materials to improve technology and use it.