I feel like this specific incident is a really shitty example of the chilling of free speech. And that's a shame, because it's a real issue that deserves better arguments than this one.

I can't see that Tanyolacar was wronged in any way. The article doesn't mention that he was personally disciplined; the university has not attempted to censor his speech. He hung a racist symbol on public property, with no indication that it was intended as art, and it was removed. Is that censorship? If actual Klansmen had set up a burning cross in the middle of campus, should we let it burn because it might have been intended to be art? If someone spraypainted swastikas on the walls, should they be left untouched as free expression of political views?

He made a statement (and if art is speech, than it can clearly be a statement) that was both not his actual belief and deliberately calculated to provoke an entertaining reaction. We call people who do that "trolls." He wanted to offend people, he succeeded, and now he's complaining about it. What did he expect to happen? What does he think should have happened?