The Minnesota Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a revenge porn law that criminalizes the sharing of nude images of a person without that person’s consent, ruling that First Amendment protections do not extend to this type of speech.

The court reasoned in its opinion that revenge porn does not constitute free speech under the First Amendment and that the non-consensual circulation of explicit images could impact people’s lives with a “single click of a button.” Specifically, the court found the statute constitutional because the government has a “compelling” interest in ensuring the health and safety of its citizens, which can outweigh free speech rights. So long as the parameters are clearly defined, — or “narrowly tailored — the court expressed that it may constrain free speech rights when citizens’ safety is at stake.

“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,” the opinion noted.

Citing statistics on revenge porn’s impact on mental health, the opinion emphasized society’s growing interest in protecting people from harm. “The effects of revenge porn are so profound that victims have psychological profiles that match sexual assault survivors. . . . Tragically, not every victim survives this experience and some commit suicide as a result of their exposure online,” the decision stated.

The Minnesota Supreme Court overturned an earlier decision by the Court of Appeals which struck down the statute after determining that it “criminalize[d] a substantial amount of protected speech.” While the Minnesota Supreme Court agreed that the law does encroach on free speech rights, the Court emphasized its interest in protecting “everyday Minnesotans” from harm, even when free speech rights are restricted.

This challenge to the state law comes after Michael Anthony Casillas’s conviction in 2017 for disseminating private sexual images of his former girlfriend despite her repeated protests. Casillas was found guilty of a felony and was sentenced to two years in prison. He later challenged his conviction, arguing that revenge porn laws were “too broad” and thus violated his free speech rights. The district court rejected Casillas’s motion and dismissed the case.