It's been posted in one of the threads. I don't know what source the poster had for that information. The complaint carefully avoids making any statement about who took the photo and I absolutely believe the polycule know its origin.
Yeah, I've asked two or three times about it and haven't been pointed back to that. I'd assumed it was a pic he took when with her or she took and sent to him but people keep saying group message. But Signal =/= necessarily group message. Maybe he took it with her phone then she sent it to him. Or was one she'd had from some time before or taken professionally and sent to him*. Still nothing saying it was a group message.
* And if it was from the series of lingerie pics she posted to Locals - but nude instead of in lingerie, that would support that she did have a different sense of privacy about a fully nude photo vs a suggestive one.
I suspect that the sort of case required to strike down that law will have to involve a publisher, media company or journalist being charged under the law for unintentionally showing a fraction of a nipple without consent.
The Court in
Casillas: "Second, a defendant must “intentionally” disseminate the image. Minn. Stat. § 617.261, subd. 1. This mens rea requirement means that a defendant must knowingly and voluntarily disseminate a private sexual image; negligent, accidental, or even reckless distributions are not proscribed. This specific intent requirement further narrows the statute and keeps it from “target[ing] broad categories of speech.” Muccio, 890 N.W.2d at 928."
I assume you're talking about a poorly executed edit job/intent to obscure sexual bits, or missing something in the background or something similar, which would not meet the specific intent requirement as interpreted by the MN Supreme Court.
How does this impact legal pornography and sharing of nudes on platforms with hundreds of people?
Commercial use (porn, or just topless in an rated movie, etc.,) is exempted from the law. That's in the statute and noted in Casillas.
Sharing with hundreds of people is clearly lowering the argument for a perception by a disseminater that the person pictured had reasonable expectation of privacy; wholly different than sharing with an intimate or small intimate group. It's contextual.
If you give photos to a site in Minnesota that does photo sharing and you don't have a literal established chain of consent to every photo and every person, someone could come back and file charges against you that you don't even know. Even if you don't know the person and had no ill intent toward them, you are still criminally liable.
Yes, that's the point: don't share nudes of people when you reasonably should know the person doesn't consent. And I would argue that consent is an affirmative act, not the inverse, if the person of the pic hasn't themselves posted it publicly.
And again, it's contextual, about the sharer and the subject. The less you know who the person is or where it came from, the stronger your argument that it wasn't reasonable for you to know they didn't consent. And if it was already posted by the person publicly, they obviously had no expectation of privacy. But if you know they didn't consent, duh, or if you know them or that the place you got it was exploiting a private picture, then you know.
