I agree with most of what you say, but have a few qualms to consider. For example, you earlier reject the “more speech” argument… but in your conclusion seem to agree with it (when you explicitly say that you are not calling for censorship or banning). In other words, you seem to agree with “free speech absolutists” that the appropriate response is not to ban or shot down offensive speech, but rather to rebut it. It seems then that you would disagree with the actions of the Berkley protestors (i.e., using violence to shut down a speech). Am I reading this wrong?