Kathy Griffin is a vile woman. A D-list celebrity at best, her entire, sorry career will be defined by her heinous photo shoot, in which she held the effigy of President Trump's bloodied, severed head -- no doubt a salute to the atrocities committed by radical Islamic terrorists.
The entire political spectrum roundly condemned Griffin, as they should. She may have the right to post such despicable photographs, but the American public have equal right (and I would argue, obligation) to chastise and rebuke such behavior.
Indeed, as @shayne reported, over 70% of TMZ viewers -- who are mostly degenerate internet trolls, let's be real! -- thought that Griffin crossed the line.
But here's a question: where is the line?
The Mysterious Line
Most people agree that Griffin's "work" was beyond bad taste. This was formulated by a societal, collective line. She breached it, and therefore, she has been adjudicated as a vile woman, as I stated at the top.
But to judge Griffin means that a quantifiable metric of moral behavior exists. Furthermore, that metric is scalar, not variable. Otherwise, different people would have different lines, and we would not be able to achieve consensus of Griffin's degenerate personality.
Indeed, the fact that we are able to witness majority consensus on Griffin's immorality implies that most people inherently understand the difference between good and evil.
A great example is racism in America. Most Yahoo trolls will defend a white person wearing blackface because they spuriously claim that "black paint" cannot be racist, and therefore, liberals need to stop being perpetually offended snowflakes.
On paper, that line of reasoning makes sense. Certainly, the wearing of blackface is not quantified as a racist act under our laws because it's a slippery slope (ie. our Navy Seals would then technically be racists).
But quantifiable or not, those that perpetuate blackface or other acts of racial mockery know deep down that they are being racists. They know the psychological wounds that the mockery of someone's racial features can engender, and that's why racists do what they do.
Calling the offended "snowflakes" doesn't take away from the fact that the line exists -- otherwise, why go through the charade of deflecting racism charges with more insults?
We Don't Understand Freedom of Speech
This all brings us to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is not merely the right to say what you want -- it encompasses the responsibility for your words and actions.
So many people misunderstand this point, it's frankly disturbing. Perhaps, even more disturbing than the Griffin photo.
Just like the law of gravity, we know where the moral line is. If we choose to cross it, we must take responsibility for crossing it. This is akin to a mountain climber that "climbs free." If he or she misses the next grab, the consequences are potentially fatal. But that is a choice we make when we flirt dangerously with gravity.
Griffin now understands this point. But the hypocrisy is that only one woman is being punished. If there was any justice at all, every goddamn Yahoo troll would be publicly exposed and be made to hold an account for their vicious words.
What Griffin did was absolutely wrong. But so is taunting a young girl who was scalped due to a horrific accident at a carnival ride. Or mocking a woman's physical appearance because of a rare genetic condition.
This is NOT freedom of speech. This is an abhorrent attempt to psychologically assault the dignity and character of an innocent human being.
It's fine to not be part of the problem. But don't let ANYONE justify their repugnant words or actions as freedom of speech. It's not.