I'm certainly fine with freedom of expression, so long, of course, that the rules of common sense regarding that freedom of expression apply. In other words, the UNDHR does most certainly not state that freedom of expression is absolute, nor does our own Constitution (unless someone has amended it without telling anyone about it...).
In other words, I'd say that it's ok to publicly show one's RL affiliation, even if for many that might be a 'provocation'. On the other hand, filling a parcel with replicas of desecrated Jewish graves filled with Nazi swastikas and the words 'Jews go home!' and then claiming that this is 'an artistic happening' or an 'experience' or even 'just a joke, don't take it too seriously!' is overstepping the line of common sense.
There is also 'freedom of expression to be a jerk' but even jerkiness has its limits — and cannot be seen as an excuse to allow one's excesses.
One thing that I always loved about the UNDHR as guidelines is that it is, generally speaking, filled with good sense, especially Article 30, the famous one which states very clearly that none of the rights is 'more important' than others. This is a guiding principle for many constitutions of many RL countries out there — and so is ours. That is, just because a specific article is 'higher up the list', doesn't mean that it is more important in the sense of being possible to claim its precedence over the remaining articles. This is particularly important in the most tricky articles, including 'freedom of expression'. For instance, it's not possible to claim that through freedom of expression one has the right to publicly offend others — because the right of personal integrity is also hallowed in the UNDHR and therefore has the same 'power' as freedom of expression.
And to connect with the thread's question... in my mind, I'd be rather forgiving and flexible enough to accommodate provocations, political, religious, and otherwise, unless a citizen or a group of citizens feels really personally offended by such provocations and cannot endure them longer. That's the point where, say, the SC might step in, if the offended parties petition the SC (or an appropriate moderator) for taking such a measure. That does not mean that the 'provocation' gets to be immediately removed, no questions asked, and no recourse possible; we're not Facebook or Twitter. Instead, both parties — the provocateur and the offended ones — ought to have the right to a fair trial, or at least get a fair decision on what is acceptable and what isn't, which should be made by a responsible moderator (thus my mention of the SC...) who will listen to both sides of the argument and eventually make a decision (or drop the issue because it's irrelevant).
In such a scenario, I would disagree with having the Chancellor or anyone from the Executive or any other organisation in the CDS simply remove the offending material just, well, because some citizens feel offended by it. I'm well aware of how tricky these things are in practice; there are too many grey areas when discussing the limitations imposed on freedom of expression. That's why I personally welcome mediation or arbitration where both sides are allowed to freely present their arguments, and, as a consequence, a decision can be made, which establishes a precedent for the future.
As said, this really depends on the extent of the 'provocation'. Simply announcing a 'Trump Boat Parade' is what I'd call 'mostly harmless' and definitely not worth paying attention to. But if such an announcement is accompanied with an exhibit of Klan members fully garbed while lynching an avatar suspended from a tree... that's, IMHO, going several steps in the wrong direction... especially if such an exhibit is used to announce an upcoming event! (I know it's not the case)
Sometimes, because it's so tough to be objective about these things — where do art/parody stop and deliberate offensive action begin? — I like to use what I call the Banksy rule of thumb. For those who don't know him, Banksy is the pseudonym of a famous British street artist — his art is routinely sold on auctions for millions, and his street art always a problem to preserve; it's not unlikely for people to demolish walls just to preserve whatever Banksy has just painted there! (Other creative solutions are placing acrylic panels on top of his art — to avoid vandalism! — and fencing the area off). Nobody knows who Banksy is, but he is based in Bristol, UK, although he often travels around the whole world, and so his street art may appear anywhere. I believe he's not available for commission work (at least not on the street), which means that nobody really knows where his next piece of art will appear, much less when.
Now, Banksy is a provocateur. His technical prowess is pure mastership: we know he can also paint using traditional techniques because a common prank is to smuggle one of his paintings into a museum and hang it on the walls as if it's part of the exhibition; in most cases, the painting is so well done that it fits perfectly into the exhibition, and it's only when coming very close to his painting that something is clearly not right with it. In many cases, his paintings remained on exhibition for days or even weeks until someone noticed it and called the curator asking about the origin of that painting... how Banksy manages to do these pranks is really unknown, because it's not very likely that he has managed to bribe so many people in so many different museums to allow them to smuggle his work in. Then again, as in the case of his shredded painting sold for £1,000,000 back in 2018, Banksy has explained that this prank took him years to plan ahead of time. Those 'pranks' are hardly 100% harmless — after all, he had just destroyed a £1,000,000 painting which had just been bought — and they have a political message behind them (Banksy is well-known for laughing at so-called 'art experts' who buy worthless art for hundreds of thousands of dollars, just because a particular artist is the nephew of the gallery owner and has no talent whatsoever, but is 'promoted' by art critics as being the next Picasso or Van Gogh...). He walks on the razor-edge thin boundary between 'artistic expression' and 'being offensive' — which is especially true when he paints street art without any permission whatsoever (which is considered vandalism in many places) or does these pranks smuggling his own work into a museum; I'm also sure that Transport for London, the authority over the London Subway (Tube), was not exactly happy about the graffiti Banksy painted inside one of their trains, and this work of art was promptly 'cleaned up' afterwards...
Anyway, that's just a brief intro for those who aren't familiar with Banksy's controversial art, so that they may understand where these boundaries are so thin and hard to keep separate. Consider this street painting, made in Paris in 2018 (during Fashion Week), on a wall next to a shelter for African refugees which had been closed down by the French government in an attempt to move all refugees out of their capital:
See? There is a swastika in it.
One might argue if this is 'offensive' or just 'freedom of expression' — this was a clear shot against the policies of French President Emmanuel Macron, with which Banksy disagrees (he has made more murals during that particular stay in Paris). Fortunately for the world of Banksy fans, the city seemed to have kept his work intact (so far, at least), even though there was no clear policy change regarding refugees, which confirms the saying that Banksy illustrated in the following way:
Although this is a nod to Emma Goldman's famously attributed saying 'If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal' (the authorship of that saying is actually under dispute), in spite of graffiti being illegal, this mural of 2011 has been preserved in Perspex, although some of the paint is flaking out — originally it looked like this.
Anyway, enough rambling. My point is just that figuring out the boundaries of freedom of expression is never easy, but, on the other hand. freedom of expression is never absolute, either.