This is the question I have to answer if you guys can help I will greatly appreciate it.
A state legislature enacts a statute that prohibits that advertising of video games "because the games might be harmful to minors.: Despite the new statute, the president of Games Marketing, Inc(GMI) orders GMI marketers to place ads in any media. When a GMI ad appears on HDTV, a local television station, GMI and HDTV are charged with violating the statute. What is the defendants' best defense against a conviction and explain how a court would apply this defense to these facts?
A state legislature enacts a statute that prohibits that advertising of video games "because the games might be harmful to minors.: Despite the new statute, the president of Games Marketing, Inc(GMI) orders GMI marketers to place ads in any media. When a GMI ad appears on HDTV, a local television station, GMI and HDTV are charged with violating the statute. What is the defendants' best defense against a conviction and explain how a court would apply this defense to these facts?