R. Crim. P. 26.01, subd. 4, and pleaded not guilty to both charges. The district court found appellant guilty of both charges. On May 21, 2014, the district court sentenced appellant, but the terms of his sentence were stayed pending this appeal. ISSUES I. Is Minn. Stat. § 609.765 unconstitutionally overbroad? II. If Minn. Stat. § 609.765 is unconstitutionally overbroad, can the statute be narrowly construed? ANALYSIS The constitutionality of a statute presents a question of law, which this court reviews de novo. State v. Crawley, 819 N.W.2d 94, 101 (Minn. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 1493 (2013). Generally, the burden is on appellant to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a statute is unconstitutional. In re Individual 35W Bridge Litig., 806 N.W.2d 820, 829 (Minn. 2011). But, when deciding the constitutionality of a law restricting First Amendment rights, the law “does not bear the usual presumption of constitutionality normally accorded to legislative enactments.” State by Humphrey v. Casino Mktg. Grp., Inc., 491 N.W.2d 882, 885 (Minn. 1992). Therefore, we “proceed with the understanding that the state bears the burden of establishing the statute’s constitutionality.” Id. at 88586. I. Appellant argues that section 609.765 is facially overbroad because it does not (1) provide for truth as an absolute defense and (2) incorporates a standard of “actual malice” with regard to matters of public concern. The First Amendment, applicable to 3