Did you read the linked article?

If so, could you be so kind as to speak to why you disagree with its unusually thorough and detailed legal analysis of the matter at hand?

The Shrek image may have been crude or vulgar. But in context, there is no serious argument Byrnes sent it to arouse anyone’s sexual interest, let alone that it satisfies the Miller test. Byrnes sent it to another adult, reportedly accompanied by political commentary describing Cirino as “Young Mussolini.” That’s protected political mockery, not obscenity.

No, this is constitutionally protected political speech, as any court in the country will find when this winds up in front of them.

Sending people porn non-consentually is sexual harassment.

Questionable, but even granting that, public figures like politicians are a legally distinct kind of people who have to meet a much higher bar to claim communication is harassment, and this is a huge nothingburger. Larry Flynt is laughing from his grave.

Sexual harassment, not assault

Generally, harassment is a course of conduct over a period of time, not a one-off. The bar for a one-off encounter being harassment of any kind is high, with good reason.

That reason, to me, is that any reasonable person should be robust enough that all but the most serious, malicious communication should be something they can shrug off without much ill effect if it's a single isolated message. Getting a picture of a wanking cartoon character and a disparaging message isn't going to be pleasant for most people, sure, but if that's it?

The logic behind punishment for sexual harassment is not - or should not - be any different from the logic behind punishment for non-sexual harassment; it should be proportional to the harm caused, and it should take the same standard of a "person of reasonable firmness" or whatever the legalese is.

Nobody coming off well in this story.