I approve of what FIRE does and wish you success, but you may be attacking this kind of thing from the wrong angle. Rather than emphasizing the benefits of speech, you could combat the idea that speech is "harmful". It's tough to interest people in letting someone speak when he's LITERALLY HURTING PEOPLE - as some of the students and the DEI dean would have it. It should be pretty easy to make that case, because the evidence for speech-as-harm is skimpy-to-nonexistent (from what I've read) and because the idea doesn't really line up with our perceptions. If it did, the protestors should have been convinced that Judge Duncan would take his own life as soon as he got home, having suffered such a traumatic experience; if it did, people would pile on someone speaking hurtfully and put him in a choke-hold while waiting for the police, as they would were he beating someone with a tire iron.