* Last week…

The outcome of the case against former state Rep. Nick Sauer, charged with posting lewd images of two former girlfriends online without their consent, could be affected by a forthcoming Illinois Supreme Court ruling.

Daniel M. Locallo, who is leading the legal team representing Sauer, told Lake County Judge Patricia Fix during a status hearing Tuesday that the Illinois Supreme Court is expected to rule soon in the case of People v. Bethany Austin.

* Friday…

In a decision with implications for the case of a disgraced former state lawmaker from the suburbs and others like him, the Illinois Supreme Court has ruled that disseminating private sexual images without permission — better known as revenge porn — is not constitutionally protected free speech.

The 5-2 ruling handed down Friday stems from the case of a McHenry County woman who sent friends and family nude images of a woman she caught having an affair with her then-fiance. […]

“Viewed as a privacy regulation, (the law) is similar to laws prohibiting the unauthorized disclosure of other forms of private information, such as medical records, biometric data, or Social Security numbers,” [Justice P. Scott Neville, Jr.] writes. “The entire field of privacy law is based on the recognition that some types of information are more sensitive than others, the disclosure of which can and should be regulated.”

The opinion is here.

* Hannah Meisel at the Daily Line…

However, Justice Rita Garman disagreed with her colleagues in a five-page dissent on that point, and was joined by Justice Mary Jane Theis in her dissent that on whether the law was truly content neutral.

“Contrary to the majority’s belief, the content of the image is precisely the focus of [the law],” Garman wrote. “It is not a crime under this statute to disseminate a picture of a fully clothed adult man or woman, even an unflattering image obtained by the offender under circumstances in which a reasonable person would know or understand the image was to remain private and he knows or should have known the person in the image had not consented to its dissemination. However, if the man or woman in the image is naked, the content of that photo makes it a possible crime.”

Garman also hearkened back to a hypothetical posed to attorneys arguing for the state during oral arguments in May. If two people go out on a date, and one later sends the other a text message containing an “unsolicited and unappreciated nude photo,” what happens if the recipient then shows a friend the photo.

“Has the recipient committed a felony?” Garman wrote. “The State conceded that the recipient had [during oral arguments], assuming the recipient knew or should have known that the photo was intended to remain a private communication.”

* Politico…

Steven Landis, who represents Sauer, was unavailable to talk Sunday about the Supreme Court’s ruling but Kate Kelly, who said she was one of Sauer’s victims, welcomed Friday’s court decision. “I am grateful to the justices who took their time to clearly and concisely lay out why the law as written is constitutional. I look forward to Nick being convicted at the criminal trial now that this had been decided,” she said in a statement this morning.