One of the central tenets of free speech is that there's no such thing as a "journalist", just people engaging in journalism. The protections of journalists app

One of the central tenets of free speech is that there's no such thing as a "journalist", just people engaging in journalism. The protections of journalists apply to you whether you work for the NYT or you're a hobo with a cheap cell phone; You can document and report on things around you. On one hand, it's not a free license for anyone to break trespassing or other laws with impunity. Being a journalist doesn't absolve you of public safety concerns. It doesn't absolve you of It's an affirmative defense. You take an illegal action only to offset a much larger one. Journalists often do engage in trespass to document illegal practices. There's a despicable practice that's become common, called "ag-gag laws", which prohibit filming in slaughterhouses. Why would you do that? These laws have no merit... Until you read the accounts of film crews that acquired jobs at meat production facilities only to film "exposes" about meatpacking practices... That were, pretty simply, not surprising or exposing anything. They're often gruesome, significantly because these crews are making it the story. Meatpacking is and always has been an unpretty industry, and quite frankly reportage inside the packing houses is important - Upton Sinclair would have something to say about it - But these crews were endangering themselves and others for the sake of their drama, operating machines unsafely, allowing unsanitary conditions to build for the sake of "exposing them". There was a legitimate problem with charlatans on a mission, each looking to one-up each other. I saw a few of these movies, and my reaction to the first one was "So you went to a farm?" - The latter were "That's unsafe", but not about the farms but about the behavior of the crew filming. It sounds like this guy is on the edge of being a nuisance protestor claiming journalism, and a legitimate journalist trying to get to the heart of the story. I actually doubt that it's that fuzzy if you had the full testimony, but there's a legitimate reason for this to go to court. Sad, but legitimate.