There is a "press privilege" explicitly recognised by the courts protecting journalists from being compelled to name their sources. Some US states have also cod

There is a "press privilege" explicitly recognised by the courts protecting journalists from being compelled to name their sources. Some US states have also codified this principle in so-called "shield laws". That's one of the more obvious counterexamples. Being a journalists can also play a significant role when judges have to balance different rights: "Trespassing", for example, is obviously not as absolute as you make it out to be. If your life is in danger you can pretty much trespass as much as you want without any legal risk. "Informing the public" is a slightly weaker justification than survival, but it is a generally recognised public good and will be considered, especially in victimless crimes such as trespassing. Law isn't an algorithm, or at least not a trivial one. It needs to capture the full breath of human life, with its limitless supply of nuance.