Photos and free speech go hand in hand.
Not even close, there are certain circumstances when you can argue that photos can by covered by free speech but not the other way around, they are not equivalent or even close to being the same thing.
Yes very close. Nearly all photos are free speech. Seriously, go read anything on the first amendment. It's why you can film cops. It's why people can show pictures of aborted babies while protesting. It's why taking ballot selfies has been affirmed by federal courts 3 times. Unless it falls under a very specific set of exceptions like obscenity (your child porn example), libel, treason, and a few others. Thus the vast majority of pictures do in fact constitute free speech, which is a giant "durr" to anyone who gave it more than 2 seconds of thought or had passed US Government in HS.
If you really want to point at Apples to Oranges regarding Europe as a continent vs US as a country, let gloss over that I can generalize with "Europe" because not a single country on that continent has free speech protections as strong as the US' protections.
Well done, you just modified your argument because you realized how stupid you statement was. However, just because you are backpedaling it does not mean that I have to adjust my argument to mat ch yours, get back on subject buckaroo. (I can "draw the dots" for you back to what was said if you like/cant remember)
You can draw the dots but I saved myself a few seconds by typing "Europe" instead of "Every country in Europe." If you think that's worthy of rebuke, well I can't change your admittedly feeble mind. In the meantime, feel free to read about photography and the 1st amendment. You might actually learn something.
1.79 x 10^12 furlongs per fortnight -- it's not just a good idea, it's the law!