Final answer:
Authorized holders of information can challenge the classification status when they believe it has been improperly or unnecessarily classified, which is true. The Pentagon Papers case exemplified that the government's ability to impose prior restraint is limited and subject to First Amendment considerations. The FOIA balances the public's right to government information against the need to protect sensitive data. so, option 1 is the correct answer.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that authorized information holders outside the classifying agency may challenge the classification if they have substantial cause to believe information was improperly or unnecessarily classified is True. Individuals with the proper authorization can question the classification status of information, especially when they believe that such classification is not warranted or has been misapplied. This is an important mechanism designed to prevent the over-classification of documents and ensure transparency to the extent possible without jeopardizing national security. The process can involve raising concerns within the agency responsible for the classification, or through other channels, such as the courts, for resolution.
In the case of New York Times Co. v. United States, commonly referred to as the Pentagon Papers case, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government's desire to keep information classified did not override the First Amendment's protection of press freedom in the absence of a serious and imminent threat to national security. However, the press's right to publish classified information is not absolute; it is still subject to certain limitations, especially when it poses a real threat to national security. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Sunshine Act also exemplify the balance between open government and the need to protect sensitive information.