> surely it's the evidence of innocence
The obligation to provide evidence of self- innocence is equivalent to the obligation to provide evidence of self- guilt. Doesn't one follow logically from the other?
The obligation to provide evidence of self- innocence is equivalent to the obligation to provide evidence of self- guilt. Doesn't one follow logically from the other?
My understanding is, it's not like the FBI got a warrant for this etc, and instead started flinging shit at him - which is clearly bad. But for this narrow argument, that's besides the point, IMHO (IANAL). Because in the first place, the guy simply didn't want to share this information with law enforcement. There is no claim that it incriminates him.
How that stacks up against actual US case law, I have no idea of course, but I don't see how it follows from the right to not self-incriminate.