Multistate Bar Examination Practice Question

The correct argument is that the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague. The ordinance's lack of a clear standard for determining what is 'offensive to public morals' fails to provide adequate notice of what conduct is prohibited, which is a violation of due process. Additionally, such vagueness risks arbitrary enforcement, as it allows government officials to subjectively decide what falls under the ordinance.

The overbreadth doctrine, while related, applies when a regulation restricts both protected and unprotected expression. While this could be a secondary argument, its focus is distinct from vagueness. Challenging it as prior restraint is incorrect because prior restraint generally involves pre-approval by the government before expression occurs, which is not the case here. Claiming no infringement of First Amendment rights fails because the ordinance directly restricts expression based on content.