It seems I've "irritated" Ophelia Benson:
[S]ince I'm irritated, I'll point out that in fact some of the things I've been talking about have still been left unaddressed and unmentioned by Norm's definitive posts, and that I've mentioned them again, and that this last most definitive post still didn't mention them. So I'm not so sure things have been settled pretty definitively. Not the things I was talking about anyway...crooning and mumbling away to myself while I went wandering blamelessly and innocently around all these tiresome houses. The main thing that still hasn't been addressed, that seems to be an elephant in the living room, is the fact that Irving lied and falsified the evidence.
I hesitate to speak on Norm's behalf, but as far as I can tell he did acknowledge the point about "falsifying the evidence" - and he certainly does here in his very latest post on the subject:
Ophelia also stands by her view that Holocaust denial shouldn't be a criminal offence - from which the inference is surely unavoidable that this is a liberty right that she not merely notes as a legal fact but also endorses. Yet she resists the conclusion that Holocaust denial, falsifying the evidence [my emphasis, JD] and so on, is then covered - as she appeared originally to deny, or at least to question - as protected free speech (this, of course, provided it does not breach laws against incitement).
Perhaps Ophelia might explain what the salient difference is between denying that the Holocaust took place, which is what Norm has been talking about in all his posts, and "falsifying the evidence" about it?