Holograms "should not" work because they are telepathically void.
(Yes, Tuvok I know, that's why I used commas.)
Riker was annoyed by the three foot version of himself in Holopursuits, which is when they claimed that there are not legal pitches against using someone's likeness "immorally".
Leah Brahms was also annoyed that the man she would one day marry was obviously shtupping a hologram of her for years before he had a chance to take a run at her, and on Earth she would have been in a better position to start the legal ball rolling on squashing this fetish but... How do you police such a thing if you can get the laws on the books? Can a Hologram of a real person be used for "moral" reasons, and where do you draw the line between moral and immoral, and what if accurate historical recreations are depicting immoral acts, suddenly education is legally untenable.
Is it possible that the lawyer subspecies of man never completely recovered from their own 21st century holocaust?