publication, regardless of the circumstances, and even though the broad ban on publication may not be necessary to effectuate the state’s interests, the statute fails the strict tests for overbreadth set out in The Florida Star and Daily Mail and, therefore, is patently violative of the First Amendment. STATE’S RESPONSE TO OVERBREADTH PROBLEM Notwithstanding the above, the state contends this court can transform the “problems” noted herein, and by The Florida Star Court, into affirmative defenses, so that the statute’s constitutionality can be salvaged. The state directs us to a number of instances where Florida courts have, without legislative sanction, created affirmative defenses to avoid a variety of constitutional problems. E.g., Herrera v. State, 594 So.2d 275, 277 (Fla.1992) (<HOLDING>); State v. Glosson, 462 So.2d 1082 (Fla.1985)
holding an inducement to commit a crime by a private party who has no government involvement does not establish an entrapment defense holding that if the undisputed testimony of the prosecutions witnesses establishes or corroborates an entrapment defense entrapment is established as a matter of law recognizing laches as an affirmative defense holding the defendant is entitled to an entrapment instruction when sufficient evidence exists from which a reasonable jury could find entrapment recognizing entrapment as a judicially created affirmative defense designed to protect a defendant from being found guilty of a crime where the government instigated the conduct