The problem raise in this essay contains a symposium that is aimed to reach a most desirable agreement to what constitutes obscene and the laws to be upheld to safeguard the community and preserve individual dignity. In a general understanding, obscene describes materials that are not morally upright to be accessed by the public and the minor in the community (Cocks, 2016). Some rules a passed by the government that targets to protect the whole process of the law, of which in no small extent the statute aims to protect the society in return. One of the Most confounding and controversial amendments made in U.S Supreme Court of justice was on obscenity. The court has tried many years to define and expand further on the meaning of obscenity and how it can apply to people who place any material that contains obscene material on the website.
Research shows that there are two methods of challenging the court ruling. A facial challenge court ruling that finds an individual guilty after going against the law, and a facial challenge where the government ruling is found unconstitutional (Sagonas et al., 2013). Mark's case can be addressed using these two methods of the court ruling.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Mark's argument that the statute is a violation of freedom of speech is unconstitutional. A facial challenge to a law tends to invalidate it on its basis as illegal. A bill that accuses someone's expression as not constitutional is said to be a facial challenge. The fact that the government passes constitutional laws that prevent minor people in the community from having access to the website; this gives the government a legal right to hold Mark liable for violating the law. Even though Mark hosts a website that after clicking redirects the viewer to the page where the window asks the user if he or she is under 18 years, does not otherwise prevent the user from accessing the site web page if below 18years. Though the law did not further explain the magnitude of how to access obscene material by other people who were not minor, it gave a chance to people like Mark think that the statute was unconstitutional. Since Mark had spit on the face of the constitution, which was valid, he had to face the law as per the state of Freedonia (Whitman, 1980).
The facial challenge can be direct with applied law where the application of the law is unconstitutional. (Garrett, 2018) Argues that discriminative motive makes the government acts to be declared unconstitutional. In this case, the law can be considered as applied challenge to Mark because the statute did not clearly outline the intense to which the website can be easily accessed the viewers. More so, the government stature did not state how the minor will be protected from accessing the internet.
To conclude, a facial challenge idealised by Mark was like an assumption that popped up on his mind, which was not constitutional. The hypotheses were in such a way that Mark assumed that creating a pop-up window page will limit minors from accessing obscene material from the internet. An applied challenge is of less impact compared to facial challenge because the statute can rarely be considered unconstitutional.
References
Cocks, H., (2016). ‘The Social Picture of Our Own Times': Reading Obscene Magazines in Mid-Twentieth-Century Britain. Twentieth Century British History
Garrett, B. L. (2018). Unconstitutionally Illegitimate Discrimination . Va. L. Rev., 104, 1471.
International Conference on Computer Vision Workshops (pp. 397-403).
Sagonas, C., Tzimiropoulos, G., Zafeiriou, S., & Pantic, M. (2013). 300 faces in-the-wild challenge: The first facial landmark localization challenge. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision Workshops (pp. 397-403).
Whitman, C., (1980). Constitutional Torts . Mich. L. Rev., 79, 5.
