This is an interesting article which I recently came across.
It covers more corner cases which the system can’t quite reach, but I’d be concerned about it affecting a lot more than intended, as teenagers if I recall, like uploading “sexualized images” to social media on occasion.
That is my take on it at-least.
Edit: I misread the article, so edited.
The language of this law is vague and unclear, it is likely that some prosecutions under it (although not necessarily this one) could be challenged on constitutional grounds. Rather than trying to stretch the constitution into new shapes and overload our criminal justice system even more, the better approach to dealing with this kind of borderline content is to disallow inappropriate sharing of such images on Internet platforms, using a detailed set of principles as guidance. Online terms of service have the capacity to be much more fine-grained about what is acceptable and what isn’t, and in what contexts. Many of these “sexually suggestive” images might objectively not be sexual at all if they were shared in a different context, such as among a group of friends. This is why context is one of our draft best practice principles.
My guess is that folks in NJ might do well to avoid this wiki article. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer