I think this all boils to the attempt to connect the unanswered questions of 'What was his "worst day"' and 'who started the swinging?' The evidence we have does not seem to point in one direction or the other, but we still try to find a place for it.
Is there any actual reason to connect the two?
Post hoc, but I don't see any distress from Nick about opening up their marriage/swinging. He has a concubine, ffs, and not even having his whole life turned upside-down has made him back away from her.
I personally think this is just more busy-bodying by the state, there's about a billion things more important to deal with but they choose this because there's not much political blowback.
This isn't the State being a busybody. If a complaint is made, they have to investigate.
And I haven't watched the clip where Aaron sends the pic (what a fucking idiot), but I plan to bc I want to know the context. The statute doesn't seem to have an intent requirement, except for increased penalties if the intent was to harass the pictured person, but I'm curious nonetheless about what he was saying about it.
I think it goes to show a pattern of behavior that sharing nudes is not something you find offensive or unacceptable, its just a matter of who is sharing them now that you wish to punish. Not to mention Kayla's own words around that post that she's proud of her body and sees no problem with sharing that. It just comes off as blatant hypocrisy you can use to punish something you would have never otherwise. I would see a difference if you had never shared anything like that before and that happened to you vs. This scenario.
It is categorically different to decide to share photos of yourself vs to have someone else decide for you.
Television/Movies/Art/etc already delineate backshot from full frontal.
The statute refers to "intimate parts." "Intimate parts" is defined as, "the genitals, pubic area, or anus of an individual, or if the individual is female, a partially or fully exposed nipple."
So no, the Hedonism II* photos are not of "intimate parts." And even if they were, consent is consent, and lack of it is lack.
*God, the name of that resort is stupid. The "II" annoys me to no end.
Realistically, the court is almost always going to side with the woman in this scenario. Revenge porn laws are just that shit.
{trashcan}
If it's a proper police report and process probably not. It's somewhat akin to extortion vs demand letter.
The MN witness tampering statute includes causing (not just threatening) a legal claim, true or false, to be filed as a potential tampering act (provided intent is met). However, it is a harder case to make that the complaint was made for tampering purposes if made timely and an actual crime occurred.
Public interest: Public figure swinging allegations
Public purpose: To inform the INCEL PRUDE SCANDIAVIANS about hypocrisy.
You don't have to go there if Nick already posted it publicly.