Freedom of speech not absolute

The recent harassment of a Trump official has led to some saying that it is a Freedom of speech issue.

However, in the past, there have been some cases which may throw doubt upon that claim in this instance.

There is the Schenck case, in which the Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment does not protect all speech in all cases.  For example, it was written in the opinion that...

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

Recent cases may have amended that somewhat, but there are still limits as to what you can say as protected speech.  Indeed, the whole point is that your rights end where it may impede other's rights. 

For example, could this be an example of hate speech?  Does harassment of an administration official cross the line when the official is off duty and trying to peaceably enjoy dinner?  The individual identified as a DOJ paralegal claimed that she had a right to deny this person of her right to peace.  She clearly wants to incite others to do the same as what she did.  Doesn't such incitement cross the line somewhere?  Doesn't this administration officer have any rights that these people are bound to respect?

"Fighting words" are not protected speech.  Calling people names may be considered fighting words.  Certainly it would seem so, if you call someone a "fascist", it may be enough to cause a fist fight, or maybe a riot.  This situation was not just one person calling another a fascist, but an entire group doing so.  What happens if another group is nearby, and objects to this characterization?

Does an employer have a right to limit speech?  Here are some cases involving that.  A fair opinion is that a DOJ is not supposed to be getting involved in politics.  The reasoning behind that could be that nobody should want kangaroo court justice in this country.  This recent situation certainly appears that way, as Trump's official is getting harassed just for being someone that this group doesn't agree with politically.  Justice is supposed to be blind, therefore DOJ officials need to maintain a decorum of respect for opposition members.

Enough paper chase for now.  The media will cry first amendment, but don't be so cowed by that.  They aren't.