speech in violation of the First Amendment, and we cannot remedy the constitutional infirmity through a narrowing construction or severance. We therefore hold that Minn. Stat. § 617.261 is facially overbroad in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Consequently, Minn. Stat. § 617.261 is void. Our holding in no way changes our view that Casillas’s conduct in violation of Minn. Stat. § 617.261—of which he was convicted—is abhorrent. Nor should it be read as failing to appreciate the significant harm that the nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual images causes. The state legitimately seeks to punish that conduct. But the state cannot do so under a statute that is written too broadly and therefore violates the First Amendment. In the end, we are constitutionally obligated to faithfully apply the law. DECISION Because Minn. Stat. § 617.261 is facially invalid under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, we reverse Casillas’s conviction and sentence under that statute, without addressing his remaining arguments for relief. Reversed. 29