Legislative Counsel Got Involved! This Document Did Not Undergo Peer Review!
From Gene Weingarten's interview of Doug Ose in the Washington Post:

I'm right now leafing through smut....I decided to telephone the author, to express my outrage. After some phone tag, he called me back.

Rep. Doug Ose (R-Calif.): This is Doug Ose.

Me: Congressman, I am reading H.R. 3687, and I have to say it is one of the dirtiest, filthiest, most shockingly vulgar things I have ever read. My question is, do you have any more copies I can get my hands on?

Rep. Ose:

Me: Kidding, kidding. Seriously, as the author of this bill, do you consider yourself a pornographer?

Rep. Ose: The answer is no. When we visited with legislative counsel, they told us that the only way to effectively accomplish what we were trying to do was to put the words in the legislation.

Weingarten also found a loophole in the bill - one that would allow Bono's speech to be legal, ironically.

The bill lists eight separate forbidden words or phrases, and then specifically outlaws their use in other grammatical forms, enumerated as follows: "verb, adjective, gerund, participle and infinitive." That elaboration was in reaction to the FCC's decision on the Bono case, which Ose considered "absurd": The FCC said the rocker's language was crude but not obscene because he was using "[expletive]ing" as a modifier, not as a verb describing, you know, the act of [expletive]ing. As the FCC explained it, Bono used the word as an "adjective" to "emphasize an exclamation."

Now here's what's interesting: The FCC did make a mistake, but not necessarily the one Congressman Ose deplores. The mistake was that Bono's bad word was not, in fact, an adjective. Because it modified the adjective "brilliant," "[expletive]ing" was technically being used as an adverb.

But this went unnoticed. And so, as currently written, H.R. 3687 doesn't specifically outlaw adverbs! So even if the bill passes, it might still be possible to say whatever the heck you want on the air, so long as you choose the right part of speech.

Wouldn't that be [expletive]ing brilliant?

You know, if the 40+ sponsors of the bill had conducted the Congressional equivalent of a peer review, this "adverb" issue would have been caught.

Then again, this blog doesn't go through peer review, and it is absolutely perfect and features the highest qualtiy commentary.