COunterspeech is always a much better solution than censorship.
In an ideal world, yes. But the problem is that in a world that fetishes 'free speech' on the assumption that all 'speech' is inherently 'harmless', those who shout loudest - i.e. those who are the least vulnerable, in a very tangible, physical sense - i.e. those the most capable of intimidating/harming/silencing others and those the least capable of being intimidated/harmed/silenced are inevitably those whose speech is out there and heard. And so those people who are more vulnerable generally suffer as a result. And are accused of not speaking up for themselves.
LastMango: But in a culture where censorship is permitted on the grounds of 'hurt feelings' then it's the powerful who get to use it as a big stick to shut down criticism. So feminist critiques of religion get silenced because of the hurt given to the feelings of the religious; rich white men with lawyers get to shut down criticisms of their unequal hiring policies by BME groups because calling them racists is 'hurtful' or 'defamatory'.... Censorship is never, ever, ever beneficial to oppressed groups, it's always used against them.