Free speech Mill, Fish, and Dershowitz

I need 2 separate paragraphs on the questions /topics below for a homework assignment.
I am in an ethics class that includes morality.
This assignment is about Free Speech
Mill, Fish, and Dershowitz

1st paragraph is “speech as violence”
A current argument put forth is that speech is harmful, like violence, so one should respond with violence. (This is not about speech that specifically incites violence, just speech that presents “hateful” or “offensive” ideas.) For example, Berkeley students used this argument (article is found here https://www.dailycal.org/2017/02/07/violence-self-defense/ ) to defend their use of violence when Milo Yiannopoulos came to speak. (Another form of this is referring to such speech as microaggressions, which links speech to aggressive and violent behavior.)-
Do you agree that hearing ideas, even ones that are “hateful” or “offensive,” is harmful? If so, what sort of harm is done?
Is it suffering a form of violence that justifies using violence to stop the speaker?

2nd paragraph
Do you think free speech is worth defending, even in situations where the speech is offensive? (You may brainstorm for yourself what the most offensive speech would be!) Incorporate arguments from the reading and original content to support your claim.