Final answer:
The act of asking the Washington Post to not publish a story about a senator's criminal activity potentially violates the First Amendment's protection against Prior Restraint. Option c.
Step-by-step explanation:
The case described involves a potential violation of Prior Restraint, which is a constitutional doctrine that prevents the government from prohibiting speech or publication before the fact.
In the scenario given, if the reporter from the Washington Post were to be prevented from publishing a story about a US senator's criminal activity due to pressure from the government or other powerful individuals, it would constitute as a violation of the First Amendment's protection against Prior Restraint.
The landmark case Near v. Minnesota reaffirmed that the government cannot engage in prior restraint except under extremely rare circumstances, a standard that was reinforced in the Pentagon Papers case where the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government's desire to keep the Pentagon Papers classified was not sufficient to justify imposing prior restraints on the press.
The New York Times Co. v. Sullivan case also highlights the extent to which the First Amendment protects the press, allowing for free reporting on public officials as long as the statements are not made with actual malice.
While the right to freedom of expression is not absolute and does contain certain key restrictions, the protection of political speech, particularly that which relates to matters of public concern, is highly safeguarded under the First Amendment.
So Option c.