part on a broad mens rea requirement: the disseminator “knows or reasonably should know that the person depicted in the image does not consent to the dissemination” and “the image was obtained or created under circumstances in which the actor knew or reasonably should have known the person depicted had a reasonable expectation of privacy.” Id. That “knows or reasonably should know” standard is a negligence mens rea that allows a person to be convicted under Minn. Stat. § 617.261 even if he did not actually know that the person depicted in the image did not consent to the dissemination or that the image was obtained or created under circumstances in which the person depicted had a reasonable expectation of privacy. See A.J.B., 929 N.W.2d at 850 (describing a “knows or has reason to know” standard as a broad negligence mens rea). Moreover, Minn. Stat. § 617.261 does not require proof that the disseminator caused or intended a specified harm. Instead, the statute enhances a criminal dissemination to a felony offense if “the person depicted in the image suffers financial loss due to the dissemination of the image” or “the actor disseminates the image with intent to harass the person depicted in the image.” Minn. Stat. § 617.261, subd. 2(b)(1), (5). Thus, the statute’s harm-causing and intent-to-harm elements do not limit the expressive conduct proscribed by the statute; they merely determine the level of criminality assigned to expressive conduct within the statute’s reach. In sum, Minn. Stat. § 617.261 covers a wide range of expressive conduct. It covers the dissemination of a sexual image with knowledge that the person depicted in the image did not consent to the dissemination and that the image was obtained or created under circumstances in which the person depicted had a reasonable expectation of privacy. But 10