Could someone please assist me in assertaining the meaning of this sentence?

Question

In Alberts, the constitutional question was whether the obscenity provisions of the California Penal Code invaded the freedoms of speech and press incorporated
by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Did he argue that the law violated the clause?

Answer 1

Alberts was the case....He said that the "Obscenity Law" was not a valid law because of the wording of the 14th amendment. So it sounds like the answer is yes.

Answer 2

From how that reads, it seems that someone has been charged for saying/writing something regarded as an obscenity, and the argument is that freedom of speech means the law is unconstitutional.

So yes, he's saying that the law violates the clause.

Answer 3

It would seem that he is arguing whether the California law prevented freedom of speech and freedome of the press. Did the california law in this instance not permit freedom of speech in direct violationof the constitution.