• Page 4, Line 8, strike "or indirectly"
• Page 4, Line 14, strike "linking to,"

• "Indirect advertising" is defined as including "linking to" information "knowing that such matter has the purpose of seeking or offering, or is designed to be used, to receive, buy, distribute, or otherwise facilitate a transaction. . ."
• Links are to sites which can change at any time. You can link to a site today which is not objectionable, and the owner of the site could change it overnight to one which is objectionable. You would still have a link to the site, even though the information had changed. The argument then involves your "knowledge" about the site.

• Page 4, Line 22, strike "or indirectly"
• Page 7, Line 12 through Page 8, Line 13
• Preferred option – strike
• Second option: Insert amendment: "No activity or speech protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States shall be used for purposes of proving intent under this section."

• Prohibits teaching or demonstrating information, by any means, pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of a controlled substance.
• Subparagraph A prohibits this with the intent that the information be used for, or in furtherance of a Federal crime.
• Subparagraph B prohibits this information being distributed to any person, knowing that person intends to use the information for a Federal crime.
• How will the government prove intent? It will likely have to impinge on First Amendment protected activity.
• Suppose you spoke about your beliefs that drugs should be legalized, and that one should be allowed to put whatever one wants into one’s body. The espousing of those beliefs is protected under the First Amendment. Now suppose you have posted information on your site that discusses needle sterilization to make it safer for those who choose to inject controlled substances. The government will now use your First Amendment protected speech (advocacy of drug legalization) as the intent that the information be used to violate Federal law.
• Precludes providing information "in whole or in part." How little of a part will subject you to liability? If use of a Bunsen burner is necessary to make some of the precursor chemicals, is teaching its proper use a "part of" the knowledge required, and would you be subject to liability?
• The information is already in the public domain. Information about making methamphetamine has been available since approximately 1925, and is available in virtually any chemistry text. "[O]nce information [is] ‘publicly revealed’ or ‘in the public domain,’ the court [cannot] constitutionally restrain its dissemination." Florida Star v. B.J.F., 491 U.S. 524, 535 (1989).
• The First Amendment protects even advocacy of illegal actions. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, (1969). Regulation of such speech is constitutional only where (1) it is intended to provoke imminent illegal action that (2) is likely to occur. Application of this statute to books or the Internet would likely fail the "imminence" requirement, because both decrease the intimacy of the communication.
• The Supreme Court has upheld a conviction for disturbing the peace where the communication was face-to-face (Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942)), but overturned a conviction for disturbing the peace where the communication was not to a specific individual (Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971) – message on a t-shirt).

Paragraph (a) would extend to physical searches the provision of the wiretap statute that allows for electronic surveillance to be conducted surreptitiously -- without notice. Notice is constitutionally required for physical searches. While secrecy has been allowed in the case of electronic surveillance, it is allowed because without secrecy, the wiretap would be useless. Additional protections for wiretapping (high level approval; minimization standards; no other type of surveillance is reasonably expected to secure the evidence; limited class of crimes) is supposed to make up for the lack of notice. However, secrecy should not be expanded in other contexts.

Paragraph (b) would make it so that an inventory of seized intangibles such as computer files need not be provided the person from whom the evidence is taken. Providing a list of inventory is important -- without it, the person wouldn't know what has been seized. FRCP 41 says that the officer taking the property must leave a receipt for the property taken, and that the "return [of property] shall be made promptly and shall be accompanied by a written inventory of the property taken." Upon request, the magistrate must provide a copy of the inventory to the person from whom the property was taken.