Everything I've said here comes down to these points:
1- You do not have a "right" to take photos in a public place (or a private place) unless it is "expressive" - I provided Porat as the illustration of this point. People objected that Porat was trespassing, and I responded that whether he was trespassing or not is irrelevant to the point under discussion because according to the ruling you don't have a right to nonexpressive photography even if you weren't trespassing. (I have said that I don't think that's how the law should be and that noncommunicative photography should be also protected, but I agree that is how it IS now.)
2- Thus, non-expressive photography can be regulated and even banned just like any other form of conduct which is not protected by the Constitution. Since there's no constitutional protection, the act of taking photos for nonexpressive purposes is no different than other forms of conduct such as chopping wood in public places.
3- Considering how often the cops bother photographers anyway, this isn't some highly theoretical, remote concern. Some people said that since they had never been bothered by the police then this can't be a big issue, and I said well there are many photographers who do get hassled by the cops even in public places.
4- In order to enforce any such ban, there's no need for a new law to be drafted specifically prohibiting non-expressive photography because existing generic laws such as "disturbing the peace" can suffice.
The cops can decide that taking photos is itself a cause of disturbance or a safety issue - because for example they can say it may hinder pedestrian traffic, scare parents, or whatever.
5- If it came to court, generally the judges would defer to the cops on the question of whether your photography was really a cause of a disturbance or not. Judges will be reluctant to second-guess the cops on public safety issues when no constitutional issues are at stake. (I made the mistake of raising the separate issue of administrative deference - circumstances when judges are required to defer to an administrative agency's opinion of the law under Chevron/Mead - but withdrew that because I don't want to "go there" because it is too complicated.)
Now, if you have a problem with any of these specific points, please which one and why.
Incidentally none of the above involves any 'expertise' - this is information that is widely available to anyone who bothers to buy and read a book on the topic of first amendment rights,.