They are simply describing your reaction to the question, and when you are formally in custody you have an immunity to that reaction being described, is the bes

They are simply describing your reaction to the question, and when you are formally in custody you have an immunity to that reaction being described, is the best I can dumb it down. It's sad that the legal context of your presence would be the basis for whether or not you have a constitutional safe harbor that you can rely upon. But that seems to be Scalia's reasoning.