On Free Speech

1. Talking harms nobody

Pretty standard Mill here, talking harms nobody so it should not be banned. In certain cases such as holocaust denial then when people come to believe these views then they can go on to cause actual harm, but the talk itself does not. Which leads me strait onto my second point.

2. Contrary views makes sure that the arguments for a position are strong

In a free country there is no way of absolutely suppressing a point of view, his arguments will find a way to be expressed through one media or another. Even in such unfree countries as the USSR and communist China dissidents still found ways of getting their opinions known.

By letting him speak openly you let the opposing arguments be pitted against the best he can produce. When this happens Irving's views are crushed. Without somebody to argue against however there would be no need to create such strong arguments backed up by such strong evidence. Therefore in an alternate world where hid views where censored should somebody come across Irving's samizdat it would seem to present a far stronger case than it should do as there would be nothing to oppose it. It may not be true that Irving will change his mind when confronted with strong arguments contrary his beliefs but other people are likely to be more open, though even he has been willing to move a bit.

3. Self Interest

In the movie "The People vs. Larry Flynt" the Larry Flynt character says "If the First Amendment will protect a scumbag like me, it will protect all of you."

Anybody with minority views (which will include everybody on some subject or other) should want to protect free speech. This is because of rational self interest because should the majority with opposing views want to shut you down you will have support for your right to speak, if perhaps not what you speak. To me this right to free speech, even for unpopular views, comes fairly easily out of a Rawlsian Social Contract, as nobody in the Original Position would know what their views where to be. The calculating the probabilities would show most people would be in the mainstream for most views, but everybody would be in a minority for something. Therefore only by being liberal on Free Speech would they maximise the chance of their not getting censored themselves.