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.
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?