I've been following with some interest the discussion between Norman Geras and Ophelia Benson about David Irving's imprisonment. Norm's most recent post seemed to me to settle things pretty definitively:
No publisher has an obligation to publish Irving or anyone else; they have no duty to propagate Holocaust denial. So Irving has no claim rights against any publisher. All the same, where Holocaust denial is not illegal, he has a liberty right to put his work about if he has a publisher that will publish it. ... But to disapprove of something, think it wrong, decline actively to protect it is perfectly compatible with still holding it to be a right.
The best sense I can make of Ophelia's position, which she has reiterated in a further reply to Norm, is that she thinks that Irving deserves all the moral opprobrium, short of legal sanction (which she says she disapproves of), that comes his way (I happen to agree with that). But that doesn't touch Norm's point, as he makes clear here. Which is why it seems odd to me that Ophelia should have chosen to go round the houses again - especially as the clearest bit of the new post just restates Norm's view for him (when she says "there are lots of things that are morally bad that nevertheless should not be agin the law").
Ophelia says she agrees with Norm on the "substance" - by which I assume she means something like the following, vividly expressed by Thomas Nagel:
Willingness to permit the expression of bigotry and stupidity, and to denounce or ignore it without censoring it, is the only appropriate expression of the enlightened conviction that the proper ground of belief is reason and evidence rather than dogmatic acceptance.