Which of the following may be a legitimate defense against public nuisance claims?

The assertion that an action was temporary and not habitual can serve as a valid defense against public nuisance claims because public nuisance typically involves ongoing conduct that substantially interferes with the rights of the public. If the action in question is shown to be a one-time occurrence or a temporary situation, it may not meet the threshold required to be considered a public nuisance, which generally requires a continuous, persistent condition that affects a significant portion of the public. Therefore, emphasizing the temporary nature of the action can help demonstrate that the alleged nuisance does not fit the legal definition.

In contrast, while local resident support may influence public opinion, it does not absolve one from liability for public nuisance based on the legal standards. Similarly, government action may complicate the matter but does not automatically exempt individuals from being held responsible for nuisances that arise from personal conduct. Lastly, claiming that an action is an artistic expression could potentially invoke First Amendment protections; however, this defense does not inherently negate a public nuisance claim unless it can be distinctly established that the expression does not cause significant disruption or harm to the public at large.