You seem to be trying to move the goal post a bit. Or is it that you just do not understand what you are talking about?
California v. Ciraolo, No. 84-1513 is not a speech case, it's a 4th amendment case dealing with government needing a warrant or not to satisfy the US constitution. What you fail to realize is that congress, the state, or city with respect to law enforcement subject to the jurisdiction thereof can create a law baring the police from using aerial photography to search for drugs on private property. This is because the case did not say you have a constitutional right to invade someone's privacy if you can see it from a public space, it said that the warrant provisions in the constitution did not bar the police(government) from the search. I hope you can understand the difference between not baring and having a right.
Also, those same entities could pass a law baring citizens from using aerial photography while still allowing the police to do so.
Like I said, it is only not illegal until a law makes it so.