proscription, and she cannot claim that it was vague for lack of notice as to her circumstances. See Holder, 561 U.S. at 20; Anderson, 148 Ill. 2d at 28. The fact that the statute may be vague as applied to the speech of others is not relevant to the resolution of this appeal. See Holder, 561 U.S. at 20; Village of Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 495; Anderson, 148 Ill. 2d at 28. ¶ 116 Defendant further objects that the statute carves out an exception for dissemination that serves a “lawful public purpose” but does not address what such a purpose might be. See 720 ILCS 5/11-23.5(c)(4) (West 2016). Again, defendant cannot challenge the clarity of statutory language that is inapplicable to her case. We have held that the dissemination of a private sexual image is a private matter, and defendant has presented no argument that she acted in furtherance of a “lawful public purpose.” Indeed, she has explained that her dissemination of the image of the victim was for a personal reason—to defend herself against Matthew’s statements that she was crazy and to explain the reason underlying the breakup of their relationship. Because her conduct was motivated by an entirely personal concern, she is precluded from asserting that the phrase “lawful public purpose” is unconstitutionally vague. It is recognized that “speculation about possible vagueness in hypothetical situations not before the Court will not support a facial attack.” Hill, 530 U.S. at 733. As noted above, a litigant cannot argue that statutory language is void for vagueness based on the speech of others. Holder, 561 U.S. at 20. ¶ 117 Defendant also argues that the statute violates due process because it imposes criminal liability for the nonconsensual dissemination of a private sexual image if a “reasonable person would know or understand that the image was to remain private.” 720 ILCS 5/11-23.5(b)(2) (2016). In defendant’s view, the “reasonable person” negligence standard is unconstitutionally vague because it mandates that the defendant “read the minds of others” regarding whether the image was intended to remain private. We do not agree. This court has held that a negligent mental state may be a valid basis for imposing criminal liability and does not violate due process. Relerford, 2017 IL 121094, ¶ 22. ¶ 118 We are similarly unpersuaded by defendant’s assertion that section 11-23.5 violates due process because a private sexual image that has been shared with another person is not a truly private matter. According to defendant, the - 37 -