The Right Not to Speak - In Court

I should give this topic some thought. I know about the right to speak without worrying about any repercussions from the government, and I'm keenly aware of the right not to speak. This article talks about the a different point of view. If I have the right speak out (or not), then that right should extend to courts of law when a person does not wish to testify against (or for) another.When we are subpoenaed, we are compelled to talk, and if we refuse, we are held in contempt, and we are not given due process. When held in contempt of court we are not given an impartial judge or jury, as an alleged criminal would have. Rather, "the judge [that levies this accusation] is the plaintiff, prosecutor, judge, and jury all wrapped into one."

It's easy to dismiss this thought as some ranting of some extremist. I'm sure most would agree that we have to give up that right in order to justify the harm committed against another person. Wouldn't I want someone to speak on my behalf if I were in a similar situation? Some might say that in order to further freedom and rule of law that it is your duty to speak when called upon. The author of the article criticizes Libertarians in particular because we are "strangely silent on the many instances of compulsory speech." He has a point.