I'm not sure how you reached the conclusion the first amendment applied. The MA SC ruled, not that Casillas had a first amendment right to post "revenge porn",

I'm not sure how you reached the conclusion the first amendment applied. The MA SC ruled, not that Casillas had a first amendment right to post "revenge porn", but that the law, as drafted, was too broad. We have insanely well established laws and precedent regarding expectations of privacy, and laws regarding two party consent. Other states have successfully narrow laws (see CA). The First Amendment thing is red herring nonsense, sadly boosted by one zealous and incompetent legislature.