And I can see why, in this day and age, they are doing this. Its one thing to do this with a criminal investigation case, is another to allow it for stuff like with the patriot act.

The phrase "remain silent" does not itself appear in the Fifth Amendment:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

(operative bit for our purposes emphasized)

That doesn't mean you literally have to say nothing at all or else be compelled to say everything. It serves prosecutorial purposes to let people believe that, but it isn't the case. In fact, thanks to one of the Supreme Court's more egregious recent decisions (Salinas v. Texas, 2013), you have to specifically tell the cops you're not going to answer their questions because the Constitution says you don't have to; just sitting there not answering is, by some bizarre conservative logic, now a tacit admission that the answer to the unanswered question is the one the police want.

In this instance, I think it's being cast as a First Amendment matter because the reading/watching material in question is itself protected by that amendment—that is, since whatever you were watching/reading was constitutionally protected, it's no one's business exactly what it was.

--G.
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
zgryphon at that email service Google has
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

The more I think about this, the more I want to argue that it should be covered under the fifth, not the first. Its not about freedom of expression, really. In this case, what it seems like to me is that they would like to use the search metadata to, in fact, incriminate the person who asked for the data. So, to me the question really is where the line is drawn, and as i get older I find myself...

To be honest I dont know where I find myself on the issue except that it seems to me that its not about freedom of speech and expression, but about what the authorities can and cannot use as evidence of a crime. And that, plus the implied right not to incriminate oneself; fall squarely under the fifth, not the first

Sure, but when you're an attorney arguing this stuff in court, it's usually not really about what it's about, it's about what you think you can sell to the court.

--G.
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
zgryphon at that email service Google has
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

Let's also remember that we're (I'm pretty sure?) not actually lawyers here AND none of us have access to the probably reams of research done before figuring out what to argue the theory of the case under.

Still, it's not about the rights of AI, even a little bit, no matter what headline writers want to write.

--
-Pasha
"Don't change the subject"
"Too slow, already did."