I don't have an issue with Baldwin objecting to adult stores or his picketing. And I have no reason to take legal action against him. However, if he took a photo of me entering an adult store and published it in any context that I was doing something immoral or of bad character, I would sue him. And so would you. He can take all the pictures he wants but he crosses the line when he publishes photos of people with the implication they are immoral or of bad character.
Even though you may think you know me from an Internet discussion this shows that you do not. This is absolutely false. If caught in this hypothetical situation I would not want to raise my profile futher by suing.
However, it's more than possible the photo would give me enough of a jolt to make me stop visiting junk establishments.
If you are on a public sidewalk entering a store, you are in the public domain. He doesn't have to say anything just publish the pic. The photo is self explanatory and eloquent. No explanation needed. If you're beating someone on the sidewalk and your pic is taken in the act, you can't file a civil suit. You were in public. At Christmas, newspapers print pics of shoppers. They can't sue because they are in public.
I think any context would probably imply this. Even a blank sheet of white paper with no words on it.