In the U.S., the only excuse for regulating TV content is based on spectrum scarcity. Spectrum is scarce, it's licensed, and because of that there is a public interest test, which the agency sometimes uses to crack down on content.

Absent the excuse of spectrum scarcity, the only grounds for regulating TV content are based on the First Amendment. (The Hayes Office, which kept movies chaste for decades, was private regulation, not public.) This is not an absolute. Any conservative will tell you "obscenity is not protected," citing chapter and verse, calling in Ashcroft's Dogs of War.

The point is this is not the case outside the U.S. In England, for instance, TV content is regulated because, well, it's powerful. Thus dangerous. And so Oftel, the U.K's new "super-regulator," is sniffing around regulating the Internet.

Fortunately some there have a Clue.

As the BBC reports, British Telecom executive Andrew Burke thinks the lid is coming off. "How risque can I be in this new age? With celebrity chefs serving up more expletives than hot dinners, surely I can push it to the limit," he said.

Here he is probably talking about Gordon Ramsey (left, from his day job), whose new show Ramsey's Kitchen Nightmares is now on BBC America. Jamie Oliver remains polite enough for your mum, and the only thing obscene about Delia Smith is how her beloved Norwich City has been playing.

After Lord Currie, who heads Ofcom, departed the panel covered by the BBC, clued-in heads prevailed generally. "If content is on-demand, consumers have pulled it up rather than had pushed to them, then it is the consumers' choice to watch it. There is no watershed on the net," said Mr Burke.

Now why couldn't they have said that to the Lord's face?