Regardless of the fate of bills in the U.S. House and Senate to beef up fines for broadcast indecency, the debate will undoubtedly continue about whether the government should be deciding what is or is not appropriate for the public to watch or listen to.

But if the Federal Communications Commission is going to have the power to levy fines, the fines ought to have a deterrent effect. It can be argued that the current fines are lacking in that respect, especially as revealed by the "punishment" meted out to 20 CBS-owned stations after Janet Jackson's now-infamous "wardrobe malfunction" during the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show.

Those stations were fined $27,500 each, which, based on current television revenues, amounted to pocket change. A bill in the U.S. House that was passed 389-38 on Wednesday would boost the maximum fine to $500,000 from $32,500 for a company and to $500,000 from $11,000 for an individual entertainer.

A similar measure under consideration in the Senate calls for increasing the maximum fine on broadcasters to $325,000, with a cap of $3 million for one day. The House bill doesn't include a cap.

All five members of the FCC - three Republicans and two Democrats - say the current fines are much too low, and they have encouraged Congress to increase them.

In response to the House action, it is appropriate to ponder two relevant matters, the most important of which is the differences of opinion that exist regarding what is or is not obscene or indecent. People inside and outside of the Congress rightfully fear that heavy penalties like those that could be evolving will curb free speech and homogenize radio and television broadcasts. Opponents to the legislation say high fines would lead to more self-censorship by broadcasters and entertainers unclear about the definition of "indecent."

"We would see self- and actual-censorship rise to new and undesirable heights," said Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., who opposed the House bill.

On the opposite side of the debate are the right-thinking people who want to be able to enjoy quality television time with their family without worrying about objectionable language or what is shown on their TV screen.

The second matter is the question about Congress' real dedication regarding the indecency/obscenity issue. The significant differences between the House and Senate bills pose the question of whether a compromise is possible - and whether compromise is being intentionally kept out of reach.

The two chambers were unable to fashion a compromise last year after public outrage over the Janet Jackson episode was at its height, and there is less public attention to the issue now, especially now that this year's Super Bowl had no semblance of the shocking Jackson breast exposure.

Implementation of a fine cap could be a sticking point, as could the big differences in the fines being proposed. A more minor issue is whether the FCC should be allowed to issue a fine against an entertainer, such as a disc jockey, without first issuing a warning.

A warning currently is required.

Under FCC rules and federal law, radio stations and over-the-air television channels cannot air obscene material at any time, and cannot air indecent material between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.

The FCC defines obscene material as describing sexual conduct "in a patently offensive way" and lacking "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value." Indecent material is not as offensive but still contains references to sex or excretions.

But those rules are not completely clear-cut, as evidenced by the refusal of several ABC affiliates last year to air the World War II drama "Saving Private Ryan" because of fears that the movie's violence and profanity might lead to fines - despite the fact that the movie already had aired on network TV.

"This is a penalty that makes broadcasters sit up and take notice," said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, regarding the penalties contained in the House-passed bill. "This legislation makes great strides in making it safe for families to come back into their living room."

From the perspective of having meaningful penalties, he is correct. However, the gray areas that will persist, regardless of the legislative outcome, will require families to exercise ongoing vigilance about what is permitted to come into their homes.

Changing the channel or station will continue to be the most immediate defense against whatever anyone finds objectionable. And, parents will continue to be the best judges of what their children should see and hear.