self-incrimination

So much for your 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination.

In general, such an act would be a breach of the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination.

For one thing, there's the argument in the article: giving the key is an admission that you know the key in the first place, which is self-incrimination.

EFF is arguing that complying with the subpoena may violate the students right against self-incrimination.

It's not much of a right to avoid self-incrimination if exercising it incriminates yourself.

The only way the password itself can be self-incrimination is if it's something along the lines of "fraudrealestateisfun".

> By refusing to testify on the basis of the right to avoid self-incrimination, they effectively admitted on the court record that they'd committed a crimeI'm not a US lawyer, or even from the US.

I thought witholding Miranda means that anything he says is inadmissible as evidence in a court of law but it's not like there's a lack of other incriminating evidence so that they would need to use self-incrimination to form a case against him.

Precedent has shown self-incrimination is enforceable in non-disciplinary public school "proceedings".If the students were "coerced" or "compelled" to take a survey that may self-incriminate them, then it could probably be shown the privilege did apply.

From the article: "Texas opposed the appeal, saying that the protection against compulsory self-incrimination is irrelevant when a suspect is under no compulsion to speak, as Salinas was because he was not under arrest and was speaking voluntarily.

The Supreme Court is very very very clear that restricting someone's ability to exercise a right is a restriction on that right; they've said it over and over again about free speech, political donations, the exercise of religion, the right to avoid self-incrimination.