The article is essentially the legal reasoning from the Nevada Court of Appeal - some fairly experienced legal minds examining the situation (in this case, via an appeal).
They're fairly clear in how they examine the situation and that no accepted definition of trespass applies and suggest some recourse to 'victims' who could, rather than incur huge legal fees, simply set their own competing projector to overcome the undesired images. An example of appeal judges being fairly pragmatic and laying a foundation for lawyers handling future cases to suggest better resolutions than expensive litigation - if only they'd read appeal court decisions /and remember them/.
However, they do also suggest there is a case to consider the situation a nuisance (s.4) and take action that way.
Given they make no mention of vandalism as an avenue, it seems quite evident the experienced legal experts suggest the situation is one of nuisance and should be handled as that if resorting to law.
Why should anyone on HN argue with a qualified legal opinion by suggesting alternative legal strategies?