"Racist or not, we either have free speech or we don't. "
Oh, we have free speech. This kid exercised it. Free speech has only to do with the government restricting your speech.
Seems to me like the kid expressed himself. So, apparently, did the kid who punched him. You've heard of "fighting words?" This is an example of that.
Consider how you might react if some kid had a t-shirt with a picture of your daughter on one side and the words, "Nice Piece" on the back. Just think about it, and then think about a cartoon showing two black people being dragged behind a car in nooses.
The kid's lucky he is still around.
Free speech doesn't apply to fighting words.
We have here one case of odious speech and one case of violence. It should be pretty clear who is wrong in this instance.
As far as "fighting words" doctrine, I'm pretty sure that those words need to be personally directed to qualify. Otherwise we'd have an open license to beat the crap out of thousands and thousands of traitorous left-wingers who on a daily basis spew rhetoric more odious than a KKK t-shirt.
It might have been an instance of"Suspension? Well, it'll be worth it to take out the garbage." And he's probably a hero among his black friends -- probably among many whites there too.
If I read the article correctly this happened at school.
Most schools have rules against T shirt slogans that are disruptive and/or offensive. Of course broad interpertation of the word disruptive has lead to incidents of head shaking nonsense.
But in this case I can not see how it could be argued that this T shirt is not disruptive. The wearer should have been sent to the office , told the shirt was unacceptable and given the choice to change or leave school.
Was it wrong for the other guy to punch him. Yes, but violence could have been prevented if the school administration had done their job.
Of course he should be "allowed" to wear that shirt. And it should be considered an unlawful act to punch him.
But I'd punch him anyway, really f***ing hard, more than once. (not within an inch of his life, maybe a few inches). And I'd accept the consequences, as to me they are worth it. Legally of course it is wrong to harm or threaten someone in such circumstances. But I believe in something called HONOR.
It is no different from a man taking a dump on my steak at a restaurant (ignoring the mechanics involed in such a feat). He'd be leaving with fewer teeth, lost in the process of being forcefully given his loaf back. Sure that would make me a caveman. But anyone who would go limp-wristed in either case (or the scenarios you present with the daughter or mother on a t-shirt with lewd statements) has no honor and is no man.
How about a t-shirt that says "I support our troops when they shoot their officers?" Is that protected speech?