permissible reach of such regulation to works that depict or describe sexual conduct. Id. Such a regulation must “be limited to works which, taken as a whole, appeal to the prurient interest in sex, which portray sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and which, taken as a whole, do not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” Id. at 24, 93 S. Ct. at 2615. Based on that definition of obscenity, the state contends that Minn. Stat. § 617.261 regulates only obscenity. The state argues that “[t]he average person would find that [Minn. Stat. § 617.261] regulates content that appeals to the prurient interest.” The state notes that a prurient interest in sex has been defined as a morbid, shameful interest in sex, Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., 472 U.S. 491, 504-05, 105 S. Ct. 2794, 2802 (1985), and asserts that “people who disseminate nonconsensual, private sexual images evince” such an interest in sex. The state further argues that Minn. Stat. § 617.261 “regulates content that depicts, in a patently offensive way, specifically defined sexual conduct,” asserting that “[w]hat makes the proscribed images patently offensive is, again, their nonconsensual nature.” Specifically, the state argues that “[i]mages depicting someone’s nudity or sexuality taken in private but shared publicly without consent are patently offensive.” Lastly, the state argues that the images proscribed by Minn. Stat. § 617.261 lack serious literary, artistic, political, and scientific value. The state’s obscenity argument is not aligned with the definition of obscenity. The definition requires, in part, that an allegedly obscene work “portray sexual conduct in a patently offensive way.” Miller, 413 U.S. at 24, 93 S. Ct. at 2615. That is, the definition asks whether the content of the image is patently offensive. See The American Heritage 12