Go (expletive) yourself. That’s how Vice President Dick Cheney decided to kick off the Senate’s new indecency regulations passed a couple short weeks ago when he was embroiled in what aides later described as a “heated exchange” with Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.

Cheney’s “too hot for C-SPAN” sailor talk aside, the incident casts light on the absurdity of the new regulations, which raised the maximum indecency fines from $27,500 per violation to $275,000 with a cap of $3 million per day, spurred on by incidents such as the infamous Super Bowl “wardrobe malfunction” and particularly offensive radio shock jocks such as Howard Stern.

Capping the absurdity was the Senate’s near-unanimity on the matter, voting 99-1 (the lone dissenter being Sen. John Breaux, D-La., who objected namely on technical grounds), illustrating that there is perhaps nothing the Senate won’t do if it means “protecting the children.”

Here’s a novel concept — perhaps the job of parenting themselves should be the role of parents rather than the government. If parents find broadcast content offensive or unsuitable for their children, they always have the option to change the station.

In rare, unexpected cases of indecency like the Super Bowl halftime show, even draconian penalties cannot retroactively undo the damage done — leaving us no worse off than if the consumers staged their own punitive actions themselves. This in turn leaves broadcasters with a clear mandate — satisfy their customers or face desertion, soon leading to their advertisers taking the same route.

Does this mean that all broadcasts will be G-rated fun for the whole family? Of course not — as the cases of offensive radio personalities like Stern demonstrate, some people like to be offended. This is why we also have more than one brand of automobile, laundry detergent, and breakfast cereal — individual tastes will vary.

If parents are concerned about the content that their children are being exposed to, it should be their job to regulate their airwaves — with their remotes. The FCC has a clearly defined role in allocating and enforcing the distribution of scarce spectrum resources. Yet this mandate of necessity does not (nor should it) alone confer it the duty or authority to police the content of said spectrum — rather, this is the job of consumers themselves.

Instead of further easing into the role of government-appointed nanny, the FCC should be sticking to its original and most useful function — regulating how bandwidth is allocated.

It is most disquieting then that no senators could find it within themselves to raise this objection.