the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that government shall “make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.”1 U.S. Const. amend. I. “A statute is overbroad on its face if it prohibits constitutionally protected activity, in addition to activity that may be prohibited without offending constitutional rights.” State v. Machholz, 574 N.W.2d 415, 419 (Minn. 1998). With respect to limitations on speech, a statute is overbroad “if a substantial amount of protected speech is prohibited or chilled in the process” of banning unprotected speech. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coal., 535 U.S. 234, 255, 122 S. Ct. 1389, 1404 (2002). The overbreadth must be substantial in relation to a statute’s plainly legitimate sweep. United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 293, 128 S. Ct. 1830, 1838 (2008). Applying the overbreadth doctrine to invalidate a statute, however, is a “strong medicine” that should be “used sparingly and only as a last resort.” N.Y. State Club Ass’n, Inc. v. City of New York, 487 U.S. 1, 14, 108 S. Ct. 2225, 2234 (1988). The first step in overbreadth analysis is to construe the challenged statute. Williams, 553 U.S. at 293, 128 S. Ct. at 1838. Minnesota’s criminal defamation statute reads: Subdivision 1. Definition. Defamatory matter is anything which exposes a person or a group, class or association to hatred, contempt, ridicule, degradation or disgrace in society, or injury to business or occupation. 1 Appellant challenges section 609.765’s constitutionality under the United States Constitution. At the district court, appellant challenged section 609.765 under both the Minnesota and United States Constitutions. He has abandoned his Minnesota challenge on appeal. 4