This conflicts directly with our First Amendment, which grants the people freedom of the press. It is not reasonable to give up and serve 30 days in jail for a false crime you have been charged with unconstitutionally.

You seem so nonchalant about the potential jailtime, since it's "so small." Have you ever heard this poem?

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

It does not matter at what scale this constitutional abuse occurs. That it is happening at all should be horrifying to you; have you seen what happens to government dissidents and journalists in 'civilized' countries like Russia and China?

EDIT: I don't want to reply to everyone, but if you could invoke the first amendment in the way you all are arguing then every murderer would just need to say the murder was their performance art.

The salient question is whether this is a matter of restraint on speech or simply a matter of prosecuting her behavior independent of any related speech. There's a much longer discussion (or court case) to be had on this point.

But as to the question of whether you can invoke a constitutional right to justify breaking the law? Absolutely, no question about it. Yes.

A recent high profile example of trespass law clashing with the first amendment would be free speech zones.

The Constitution constrains the construction and application of all laws. Every single one.

First amendment entanglements with trespass generally occur on public land where some local authority has prohibited some sort of activity involving speech. There usually aren't first amendment issues to be raised with trespass of private property, as rights are relevant with respect to government authority.

For individuals breaking constitutional laws, this is irrelevant.

In this case, the question is whether a charge of "rioting" or "trespassing" or whichever charge is currently in play withstands this scrutiny. Generally, application of these laws pass Constitutional muster. On occasion, they do not.

Journalists are allowed to protect their sources, where the rest of us might be compelled in a court to testify.

It doesn't give them blanket immunity from all laws, but it does provide them certain protections. This is a clear case where the state is overreaching.

EDIT:

> EDIT: I don't want to reply to everyone, but if you could invoke the first amendment in the way you all are arguing then every murder would just need to say the murder was their performance art.

No. That is not remotely true. You're being ridiculous.

While that's the common perception, it's not clear at all: https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/can-a-journalist-be-force...

The issue in this situation is selective enforcement.

Were ALL the other protesters arrested and charge for the same crime? Or was it just her and a few others?

If it was just her, then she is being targeted by the government, not because she broke the law, but because she made them look bad.

It hinges on the motive of the arresting party.

Killing a person and calling it 'performance art' is a totally different type of case than what we have here.

>When asked to explain the grounds for arresting a working journalist, Erickson told the Grand Forks Herald that he did not, in fact, consider Goodman a journalist. “She’s a protester, basically,” Erickson told the newspaper. “Everything she reported on was from the position of justifying the protest actions.” And in The Bismarck Tribune he later added, “I think she put together a piece to influence the world on her agenda, basically. That’s fine, but it doesn’t immunize her from the laws of her state.”

This is the important point of the article, the prosecutor says they do not consider Goodman a journalist because the 20 year journalism veteran doesn't adequately represent the point of view of their client.

It is the article that asserts that "arresting a working journalist" requires a special explanation.

It should be noted that the original charge leveled against Goodman was not riot but criminal trespass, also a misdemeanor. However, just days days before Goodman was set to appear in court, the prosecutor, Ladd Erickson, switched up the charges because, he admitted in an email to Goodman’s lawyer, Tom Dickson, there were “legal issues with proving the notice of trespassing requirements in the statute.”

We should require that the State be using its (considerable) resources to achieve the best "public good".

It is my opinion that throwing charges until they stick at a journalist (the only constitutionally protected profession) in order to bully them from doing their job when it is not in the interest of the State, is not in the best interest of the public. That is not creating a public good.

"She’s a protester, basically," Erickson told the newspaper. "Everything she reported on was from the position of justifying the protest actions."

http://www.democracynow.org/2016/10/15/breaking_nd_prosecuto...

I read the Arizona case, that reporter was charged with trespass for ringing a cops front door bell. A cop under investigation for murder of a woman.

The public absolutely has a right to know, and knowing involves Goodman following the protestors onto that land.

Id like to know if theres a form of successful activism that doesnt have to devolve into criminal activity, even if minor. From what I gather, usually companies/parties complicit in the problem activities can simply ignore protests.