existence may cause others not before the court to refrain from constitutionally protected speech or expression.’” Id. (quoting Broadrick, 413 U.S. at 611-12, 93 S. Ct. at 2916). “The rationale for allowing an overbreadth challenge, even when a statute is constitutional as applied in a particular circumstance, is that enforcement of an overbroad law chills protected speech, which inhibits the free exchange of ideas.” State v. Hensel, 901 N.W.2d 166, 170 (Minn. 2017) (quotation omitted). The Minnesota Supreme Court recently summarized the analysis applicable to a First Amendment overbreadth challenge as follows: We may reverse a conviction for violating the First Amendment if we determine that the statute is unconstitutionally overbroad on its face. A statute may be facially overbroad in violation of the First Amendment when it prohibits constitutionally protected activity, in addition to activity that may be prohibited without offending constitutional rights. Because of the fear of a chilling effect on speech, the traditional rules of standing have been altered in the First Amendment context to allow litigants to challenge statutes as unconstitutionally overbroad even when their own conduct could, consistent with constitutional requirements, be punished under a narrowly drawn statute. A.J.B., 929 N.W.2d at 847 (citations and quotations omitted). In sum, Casillas may bring a facial overbreadth challenge to Minn. Stat. § 617.261 even if his dissemination of A.K.M.’s image is not protected by the First Amendment. As to the applicable analysis: The first step in an overbreadth challenge is to construe the challenged statute; it is impossible to determine whether a statute reaches too far without first knowing what the statute covers. Once we understand the scope and sweep of the statute, we ask whether its reach is limited to unprotected categories of speech or expressive conduct. 6