Here are specific answers to your questions...
So, do tell me, upon what do you base this belief that the government holds such a right?
Courts have ruled over and over that obscenity isn't protected speech.
What makes you think I want to see "disgusting filth"? Is the scene from Titanic where Rose poses for a portrait without a top on "disgusting filth"? Further, what damage do you feel would be caused to children who see this? What makes you think all nudity should be treated the same as hard-core pornography?
I didn't say it was. I don't care about specific content. I care that the FCC (or someone) has the right to block obscene or indecent content. Quite frankly, I don't think that her being nude added anything to the scene, and I think that 90% of the nudity I've seen in movies is unnecessary - it's there purely to sell tickets. I don't think nudity is automatically pornographic, however. But my opinion of nudity doesn't matter; what matters is whether someone has the right to make that determination
The government didn't take away James Cameron's right to present Titanic over the air without censorship?
He has every right to present it, but having the right to make and present a movie is not the same as having the right to transmit it over the airwaves. The constitution preserves the right to speech, not radio transmission.
So what are you saying here? Due to the fact that a child *might* stumble into adult programming, none should be allowed?
I'm saying that you have the right to watch what you want, but I don't think that right extends to the public airwaves.
Put it any way you want, but I don't think the right to free speech includes all forms of expression in any place at any time. When it comes to specific forms of "expression", there are things you're not allowed to do in public, and there's nothing more public than shooting a radio transmission from the top of a mountain with 50,000 watts of electricity.