Are you really just saying pictures meant to shame should be illegal or do you have a hang up with female breasts?
Here, let me google that for you - https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/617.261
Yes, "pictures meant to shame" is exactly the kind of thing envisioned by the revenge porn laws that have been passed in many states recently, including Minnesota.
Nice googling, but you should have read the entire statute. To save you the trouble, I'll highlight the key elements:
"Subd. 5.Exemptions. Subdivision 1 does not apply when:
(1) the dissemination is made for the purpose of a criminal investigation or prosecution that is otherwise lawful;
(2) the dissemination is for the purpose of, or in connection with, the reporting of unlawful conduct;
(3) the dissemination is made in the course of seeking or receiving medical or mental health treatment and the image is protected from further dissemination;
(4) the image involves exposure in public
or was obtained in a commercial setting for the purpose of the legal sale of goods or services, including the creation of artistic products for sale or display;
(5) the image relates to a matter of public interest and dissemination serves a lawful public purpose;
(6) the dissemination is for legitimate scientific research or educational purposes; or
(7) the dissemination is made for legal proceedings and is consistent with common practice in civil proceedings necessary for the proper functioning of the criminal justice system, or protected by court order which prohibits any further dissemination."
To date, Ramsey County has not made charges, so I'm not wrong at all. I think it is likely that Ramsey County has issued their non-commital statement because they realize they have a potential hot potato on their hands. My guess is they know that it is likely no law was broken, but on the off-chance this picture was taken in a private setting (it theoretically could have been taken on a private beach I suppose), they've asked the police to keep investigating. I predict this dies down and quietly no charges are filed. I could certainly be wrong, but I'd be willing to make a bet on that.
If it was taken in a public setting, and they charge, any 4th tier lawyer will win the case in a heartbeat, and rightly so by the very definition of the statute you think supports your case.
Claiming that posting a picture of a woman exposing secondary sex traits in a public venue is punishable revenge porn falsely presumes that a) it's 'porn', and b) that women lack the agency to make informed decisions about what public
behavior actually constitutes (i.e. that view is sexist). To my original example, I don't want anyone posting pictures of my middle aged body, but if I go to the beach and expose it, that's the risk I take.
It's clear that the intent of Martinez' post was to shame his wife, but in a progressive world, we as a society simply shouldn't view that as criminal shaming any more than we should a picture of a woman publicly exposing her breast to feed her child. She simply did nothing wrong, and a picture of her doing nothing wrong should be met with a collective yawn. If some dude posted a public pic of a woman in a miniskirt and captioned it 'look at this trashy chick' I hope the response would be 'dress how you want and ignore that jerk!' not 'he posted a graphically inappropriate picture, lock him up!' If she had a fun carefree day at the beach, good for her! Move on.
The guy clearly had bad intentions and is likely suffering from mental illness, but he's not a criminal.