Free Initial Consultation 24/7
In late December of 2020, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled on a case involving an offense of nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual images. This offense is also commonly referred to as revenge porn. Revenge porn is essentially the posting of nude photographs or videos without the consent of another individual, in order to slight them. Most occurrences are between a girlfriend or boyfriend trying to reap some sort of revenge through humiliation of their current or former significant other. According to the Supreme Court in this instance, Minnesota’s revenge porn laws withstand constitutional scrutiny.
In 2016, Michael Casillas and his girlfriend were engaged in a three-month romantic relationship. Casillas obtained his girlfriend’s account information, including her Verizon cloud account. He found a video and photograph of his girlfriend engaging in sexual activity with another person. Subsequently, Casillas posted the sexual video content to a pornographic website, despite legal threats from his ex-girlfriend. Casillas was charged with nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual images. However, he claimed that he was free to do so as his speech was protected.
The Dakota Country District Court originally ruled that Casillas’ actions were unlawful and not protected speech. The court sentenced him to 23 months in prison for the felony conviction. However, Casillas argued that the statute was overbroad and that his actions were entirely protected by the First Amendment. Furthermore, he argued that he did not intend to harm his ex-girlfriend. The decision was then overturned by the Minnesota Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals reviewed the original ruling and decided that Minnesota Statutes § 617.261 was unconstitutional in this case. They reversed Casillas’ conviction while declaring the statute unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court of Minnesota reversed the decision of the court of appeals. They ruled that Minnesota Statutes § 617.261, which prohibits nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual images was constitutional in this case. Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruled that the court of appeals had erred in their determination that the posting of nude images was protected under the First Amendment. The law states that the mere act of posting nude photos is not immediately criminal. Nudity appears often in movies, film and works of art. However, Casillas’ actions were ruled unprotected by the First Amendment.
Specifically, the Supreme Court ruled that it is in the interest of the state of Minnesota to protect the health and safety of its citizens. Therefore, the Supreme Court also ruled that Minnesota Statute § 617.261 survived strict constitutional scrutiny. To survive strict scrutiny a law must further a compelling interest of the state and be narrowly tailored to that purpose. The statute in questions was determined to be narrowly tailored to protecting the residents of Minnesota.
Casillas will serve out his prison sentence, after a tumultuous examination by multiple courts. The Supreme Court upheld the original ruling by the Dakota County Court. They also ruled that Minnesota Statute § 617.261 was constitutional and that it was lawful to punish Casillas for what he believed was protected speech. In any instance, it is not wise to follow in Casillas’ footsteps, no matter how aggravating one’s ex might be.
If you believe that you may be charged for non-consensually disseminating private sexual images, speak to a knowledgeable attorney at BK Law Group.
Copyright ©2025 BK Law Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
