apply First Amendment principles to prevent the criminal prosecution of representatives of the press arising from reporting illegal conduct. However, in none of these cases were the defendant-reporters alleged to have asked the subjects of their reports to violate the law. Moreover, in none of these cases were the defendant-reporters alleged to have done anything other than merely record and report on the illegal conduct. If the facts alleged by the State were that the defendants had simply videotaped the children possessing or chewing tobacco, with nothing more, prosecution of the defendants would clearly be prohibited by the First Amendment and by Article 1 Section 15 of the Utah Constitution. See Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 681-83, 92 S.Ct. 2646, 2656-57, 33 L.Ed.2d 626 (1972) (<HOLDING>). However, while the First Amendment protects
holding that an equal protection claim was no more than a first amendment claim dressed in equal protection clothing and was thus subsumed by and coextensive with the first amendment claim recognizing first amendment protection for news gathering holding local rule barring posttrial interviews of even willing jurors without leave of court violated first amendment right to gather news recognizing first amendment retaliation right recognizing first amendment and fourteenth amendment interests in inmate correspondence