(FOX 9) - Minnesota's revenge porn law, which was struck down by the state's Court of Appeals last year, has been reinstated by a Minnesota Supreme Court decision.
Last December, the Court of Appeals ruled the law was unconstitutional while reviewing the 2017 conviction of Michael Casillas in Dakota County.
Casillas was convicted of logging into his ex-girlfriend's online accounts, obtaining an explicit video of her with another man, and sending that video to other people.
While saying that Casillas actions were "abhorrent," the Court of Appeals ruled that the law was too broad and restricted some forms of protected speech, partially because the law didn't require prosecutors to prove the violator intended harm by sharing the photos.
In its ruling, the Minnesota Supreme Court agrees with part of the Court of Appeals ruling, finding the law goes beyond restricting just obscenity -- which the district court had found. But justices argue that the state needs to argue the difficult task of adding a new class of unprotected speech, but fails to do so.
Sharing an example of the law's overreach, justices write:
"If a man shares a picture of his wife breast-feeding their baby against her wishes and part of her nipple is exposed, this picture would not qualify as appealing "to the prurient interest," but may fall under the statute. There are dozens of other examples of non-obscene nude photos that are criminalized by this statute."
But, the court says that the state did enough to prove there is a "broad and direct threat to its citizens" from revenge porn. The court also believes that while the law does prohibit some protected speech, the law doesn't violate the First Amendment because it holds up to "strict scrutiny."
Justices write in the new decision:
"The constitutional right to free speech stands as a bedrock for our democracy. This sacred right shields our citizens from prosecution and imprisonment while they debate and discuss the pertinent issues of our time. Even the most unpopular ideas and expressions find refuge under the First Amendment’s umbrella. To protect this fundamental promise, we evaluate any encroachment on free speech with both caution and skepticism.
"The nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual images, however, presents a grave threat to everyday Minnesotans whose lives are affected by the single click of a button. When faced with such a serious problem, the government is allowed to protect the lives of its citizens without offending the First Amendment as long as it does so in a narrow fashion. Minnesota Statutes § 617.261 is a representation of this constitutional compromise and adequately balances the fundamental right to free speech with the citizens’ right to health and safety."
The decision reverses the Court of Appeals ruling from last year and remands the case to them to rule on outstanding issues.