I've been following the FCC-laden "indecency-gate" events since America went completely gaa over Janet Jackson's nipple at the Superbowl. K and I saw the halftime show, and we were apparently the only two people on earth who simply didn't notice. Because allegedly people started emailing the FCC at that very moment, TiVos across the nation started flying into reverse, and politicians started talking about how far back this has taken civilization.

I knew that all of this would blow over. So did my favorite afternoon talk radio DJs, Don and Mike, who were talking about the backlash. And it happened that Don let out the word bullshit on the air twice, giving him and his partner a two-week suspension without pay.

And since then, the FCC has become the "moral police" for all of America. The amount a radio personality can be fined for uttering something "indecent" has now gone up to 3 million dollars per violation. And everything is now on tape delay because -- oh my sweet heaven -- what if yet another nipple somehow makes its way into prime time?

Today I learned of the latest two incidents of this:

- On last night's Late Night With David Letterman, Janet Jackson was Dave's guest - and an exclamation of hers was bleeped out by CBS. The offensive word she uttered was Jesus. Is that what this world is coming to?

- Paul Harris, a morning DJ in St. Louis who did a few stints here in the DC area, wrote an editorial in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch about how Fairfax County, Virginia middle schools have decided to yank the musical 1776 -- because of one scene where Thomas Jefferson claims that he "burns" for his wife.

This is getting to be too much. Where does it stop?

The problem is that "indecency" is subjective. There are certain topics that are deemed completely okay for Oprah to talk about but are taboo for Howard Stern. For a while, the FCC was deliberating whether or not Bono's acceptance speach in which he used the phrase "fucking brilliant" would be considered an offense because, you know... when he said fucking, he didn't mean that he was actually fucking.

Which is why I applaud the FCC for making its most recent decision regarding the "F-word." On the public airwaves, fuck is out. Period. Doesn't matter what the connotation is, doesn't matter what the show is, doesn't even matter what time it's on.

But when you get into "indecent" content, you open a whole new can of worms. I just wanted a pretty bloody episode of 24. It was broadcast on the public airwaves. Some could find that type of violence offensive. But NYPD Blue going dark for seven seconds because it may suggest that two adults are engaging in a sexual acitivity? That's bullshit. I'd certainly rather two consenting adults have sex than end up covered in blood due to a gunfight...

Yo, FCC -- We need set rules. Objective rules. Don't tell me that some radio personalities can say the word blow-job and others can't. Don't censor the word "Jesus" when utterred by a <cough> controversial artist such as Janet Jackson, and then run a mini-series about his life a week later. If you can't be objective about this, best you let me decide what's decent or indecent for myself and my children. 24 is rated "TV-14" -- which means I can set my TV to automatically block that and other like-rated shows from my set if so desired. I can do the same with my HBO as well. (Incidentally -- the news, sports events and commercials are unrated -- and I'd feel much less comfortable letting my kid watch those unsupervised, than most TV.)

(Except, maybe, According to Jim. That's just an insult to intelligence.)

I apologize for this rant, but it's on my mind. I really don't want my government making up the rules as it goes along. Because if they get as far as controlling what they happen to like and dislike on TV and radio, what will be next?

Certainly they wouldn't try to govern the Internet, would they?