be proscribed in an effort to serve that interest without violating the First Amendment. For example, in Dunham, this court held that Minn. Stat. § 609.748, subd. 1(a)(1) (2004), which defines harassment, does not substantially infringe on constitutionally protected speech or expression, and is not facially overbroad. 708 N.W.2d at 559. This court reasoned in part that “the language of the statute is directed against . . . speech or conduct that is intended to have a substantial adverse effect.” Id. at 566. Similarly, in State v. Stockwell, this court held that the stalking provision in Minn. Stat. § 609.749, subd. 2(a)(2) (2006), is not unconstitutionally void for facial overbreadth in part because “it requires that the actor knows her conduct will cause fear and causes that reaction.” 770 N.W.2d 533, 535, 539-40 (Minn. App. 2009), review denied (Minn. Oct. 28, 2009). Like the statutes in Dunham and Stockwell, Minn. Stat. § 617.261 serves the legitimate harm-preventing interest advanced by the state by proscribing disseminations that knowingly cause or are intended to cause a specified harm. But Minn. Stat. § 617.261 reaches much further, subjecting to punishment those who disseminate sexual images without either knowingly causing or intending to cause a specified harm. Casillas relies on that reach in support of his overbreadth challenge. He notes the statute’s “lack of an intent to harm element or a requirement that the dissemination actually resulted in harm” and asserts that “[t]he negligent knowledge requirement just adds to the . . . constitutional concern.” He argues that Minn. Stat. § 617.261 “punishes the act of dissemination itself without any accompanying criminal intent element or causation of harm, under a negligent throughout their lives” and that victims of revenge porn experience cyber harassment, cyberstalking, and significant emotional distress). 16