I personally believe that the best solution to speech that offends you is more and better speech.
While I agree with this on the face of it there is a huge underlying assumption required to make this a reasonable statement. If the assumption isn't satisfied, as it often isn't, then responding with "more and better" speech as you say only falls into the trap of the unwary.
Basically this assumes that both parties are actually interested in rational discourse and have open minds that are willing to accept reasonable argument.
The problem is that this is not the case. There are many examples of this. Take something totally ludicrous like the arguments against legislation against smoking that were made by the tobacco industry.
This model has become the blueprint of all the crackpots on the internet including those that deny global warming and those in favor of intelligent design or any such crackpot religious or personal bias motivated issues.
The idea is that you don't have to make a reasonable argument, nor do you need any facts to back up your opinions, all you need are the bald faced statements by a few folks predisoposed to believe in whatever crackpot scheme under discussion. They can then point to the resulting "discussion" and claim that the results are contested and there is a differing range of opinion when in reality there is no legitimate discussion nor any credible support for their crackpot scheme.
Logic and reason doesn't work because the proponents of such schemes have neither. In this case all your more and better speech does is add fuel to their fire.
This is why I have always been against political and religious threads because there is no good that can ever come of it. You aren't going to change the mind of someone who is diametrically opposed to your view.
I have no desire in general to convince anyone that they should share my particular political or religious beliefs, I just also have no wish to be exposed to people that feel they have the right to spout their drivel at me.
