(Sorry if this shows up duplicated, my earlier post seems to have disappeared into the ether)

As I understand it, the ruling was not that it was protected free speech, just that it wasn't prohibited by existing law - the nearest they could find was a law banning covert photography in places like bathrooms and changing rooms where people undress. Since those laws didn't apply in this case, there was no prohibition on upskirt photography - and changing that would be a job for the legislature, not the courts. (The defense lawyer did try to argue it was protected as free speech, but I don't think that got anywhere - that didn't matter, though, since there was no law against upskirt photography anyway.)