No, no, and I think I'm answering it, I think, reasonably. But let's suppose that -- I'm arguing that I don't think that newspapers shouldn't be placed -- newspaper websites shouldn't be placed under a more -- tighter burden of regulation, but if you go back to your point with the bloggers, how do you compel a blogger to join some kind of regulatory system, how do you compel him if his servers are abroad, if he's operating abroad, if he's operating, say, from the United States where they have the First Amendment, which they seem to think is important, and which trumps everything, which trumps what we would consider reasonable protections against contempt or reasonable protections against reputation, they think the freedom of speech trumps that. If they're operating from that environment, where politicians and journalists take the view that, yes, some people will abuse the freedom of speech, but giving them the freedom is worth paying the price of that abuse, then it's very difficult to see how you could compel that blogger to join a British regulatory system.
And also, you have to pick your fights, I guess. It's one thing to start locking people up for promulgating pornography or child porn. It's another thing to start locking people up -- because that's what it comes down to at the end of the day, if the state wants to enforce something, it has to use the law -- start locking people up for saying things, then I think that might be a price that is too high to pay for --