Is the FCC the Appropriate Agency to Regulate Speech?

John Fund, in his weekly Opinion Journal column, has a fairly balanced piece on the broadcast indecency debate (Don't Touch That Dial?). I'm not sure if it is intentional, but many of the arguments in favor of indecency regulation are fairly absurd. For example, he quotes conservative film critic Michael Medved:

Michael Medved, a nationally syndicated host based in Seattle, responded that his fellow conference goers were "crying wolf" and pointed out that "there isn't a person in this room who doesn't favor some standard for broadcasting, whether it be against kiddy porn or animal snuff films."

So, apparently, you shouldn't be concerned by the FCC's censorship unless you are a defender of child pornography and voyeuristic animal torture. Is this the quality of Medved's argument? In any case, I am not one who believes in obscenity law, but I don't think we need obscenity law to outlaw child pornography or punish those who engage in animal torture.

Fund does call for some restraint by broadcasters:

The parishioners of New York's St. Patrick's Cathedral, whose church was used as a staging ground for a live sex act broadcast on radio, shouldn't have been subjected to that frontal assault on their values.

Would the parishoners have been any happier if the publicity stunt had been filmed for sale via the Internet? Would it have been fine with Catholics if it had been broadcast during the indecency safe harbor (10pm - 6am)? I doubt very much that there would have been any lesser outrage if a magazine had pulled such a stunt. This, of course, raises the question of who should be charged with punishing such infractions, if anyone. Should a federal agency primarily charged with regulating spectrum be the first choice do you think? Or can we possibly think of a more appropriate agency, if any, to deal with sex in churches?