How about looking at this a different way:
It isn’t a free speech issue, it is an issue of intellectual property (an image of you taken without your specific permission for publication is a violation of your PROPERTY rights). Another thing is invasion of privacy - you have a right to NOT expose your image, particularly of body parts that are traditionally taboo to be shown in public. Those 2 things - property rights and the right to privacy - should overcome free speech issues...particularly if some legislature could artfully craft appropriate legislation.
I believe both of those issues should be reserved for civil court where you can sue somebody for those infractions.
It isn’t a free speech issue, it is an issue of intellectual property (an image of you taken without your specific permission for publication is a violation of your PROPERTY rights). Another thing is invasion of privacy - you have a right to NOT expose your image, particularly of body parts that are traditionally taboo to be shown in public. Those 2 things - property rights and the right to privacy - should overcome free speech issues...particularly if some legislature could artfully craft appropriate legislation.I think you're exactly right. The statute in question was overturned for being "overly broad." Legislatures at all levels (from Congress on down to your small-town city councils) often write very sloppy, overly broad laws.
I'm inclined to agree. Unfortunately, considering how large the penumbra of the Constitution has grown, there's no telling what whould end up being permissible or not. ;-)