Just to clarify, is the basis of your argument that I believe Kathy Griffin's freedom of speech was infringed? If so, I'd like to state that I don't believe her actions to be freedom of speech at all given the facts of the matter. Prior to the photo, she declared that every Trump family member, including Barron, was free game. She deliberately sought to cause psychological injury to someone, and that's where freedom of speech protections end.

The U.S. Constitution provides exceptions to freedom of speech, which at the time they were written are quite narrowly defined. Given the mass proliferation of the internet, these exceptions are likely to be crystallized to reflect modern mores. One of those exceptions is, and will likely be, the incitement of violence and the willful intent to cause harm.

The Supreme Court case Beauharnais v. Illinois (1952) upheld a "group libel" law protecting racial and religious groups against hate or contempt, unless the speech was for "good motives" or "justifiable ends." These types of exceptions exist now, but will likely be expanded in the future...that could possibly put an end to actions like what Griffin did.