Please keep in mind that I'm not arguing for or against Thompson's actions.  From what I've read (the Guardian article, and Keller's opinion) I don't feel qualified to offer an opinion.  This is first how I feel about the Guardian's publishing choices, second an attempt to interpret the Court's ruling.

The opinion was linked to in the Guardian article.  [Here it is.](http://www.search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=e84ca5f5-3503-48c7-934a-7b9da8118ddc&coa=coscca&DT=OPINION&MediaID=fa16d354-fe1a-47df-a3bd-fff85d0dddc1)

First things first, you are not reading this wrong.  I think you are interpreting the article in the way it was meant to be interpreted.  However, the article takes some liberty with the lines between reporting and opinion.  Some of the wording in the article seems at worst expressly false, at best highly opinionated and predictive.  After reading the article several times, and glancing over Keller's opinion, I would re-write the article as such:  The Texas Court upheld a Defendant's appeal on the basis that his actions were protected by the First Amendment.  The Texas Court went to great lengths to separate the Appellant's actions from other actions such as up-skirt photography, but we think that distinction was a mistake (either because the actions were not so different or because it will weaken future ability to pursue legal recourse against up-skirt photography, we don't care enough to clarify).

Please excuse me a moment of sorry-not-sorry for being dismissive of the Guardian's article.  It hits two things that make my heart rate increase.  I can't stand shoddy reporting, and trying to decipher legal opinions gets me excited.

The Court repeatedly said that up-skirt photography was legally prohibited and could not be covered by the First Amendment.  It went to great lengths to distinguish why the Appellant's actions were different and may be covered by the First Amendment.  That headline is clickbait.  You're reading it right, they're saying it wrong.

Furthermore, while Thompson's actions were used as the example case, the Texas Court of Appeals was evaluating a specific law and not Thompson's actions.  They basically said that, as the law is written, it is unconstitutional.  Go ahead and read the opinion.  Pay attention to the section on scrutiny, I think that is section that is most obscure and also the most important to the final decision.  If you'd like me to try to summarize or explain anything, just ask.  Not that I'm more qualified than anyone else, only that I am more patient with legalese than most.