standard highly subjective. Indeed, in concluding that Casillas was guilty, the district court reasoned that “an expectation of privacy regarding the image is implicitly inherent from the nature of the act depicted,” indicating that some might view a sexual image as private and its dissemination nonconsensual regardless of the actual expectations of the person depicted in the image. The dissenting opinion in People v. Austin sets forth a telling hypothetical that reflects our concern: A hypothetical posed to the State during oral argument illustrates this point. Two people go out on a date, and one later sends the other a text message containing an unsolicited and unappreciated nude photo. The recipient then goes to a friend, shows the friend the photo, and says, “look what this person sent me.” Has the recipient committed a felony? The State conceded that the recipient had, assuming the recipient knew or should have known that the photo was intended to remain a private communication. 2019 WL 5287962, at *24 (Garman, J., dissenting). It is not difficult to envision a substantial number of situations in which a person observes an image that may have been disseminated in violation of Minn. Stat. § 617.261 and further disseminates that image without knowing that the subject of the image did not consent to the original dissemination, without knowing that the image was obtained or created under circumstances indicating that the person depicted had a reasonable expectation of privacy, and without intending to cause a specified harm. Given the ease with which impermissible disseminations under the statute may be further disseminated without the intent to harm necessary to proscribe expressive conduct without violating the 24