David Irving is an odious man, with awful views, so is Blimpish, but I wouldn't want either of them to go to jail just for voicing their ridiculous opinions.
David Irving has pleaded guilty to holocaust denial and has been sent to jail for 3 years. Not only is this wrong from a freedom of speech point of view, it is counter productive. More idiots are now going to have sympathy for his Nazi racist views, and more people are going to read his books.
It is precisely for this reason that I don't want to see the fascist Hizb ut Tahrir banned or Nick Griffin go on trial. Driving these groups underground just makes them more extreme, it doesn't make them go away.
Only if someone is directly inciting violence should they be prosecuted. The more tolerance we have, the more free speech we have, the better. Because it is in open debate where these views are defeated and this demonstrates these people for what they really are - ridiculous. And nothing is more threatening to those who hold a ridiculous view than mockery, as was demonstrated by the Mohammed cartoons debacle. It is a sad indictment of our society that we have sunk to the level of the Nazis in suppressing free speech. This will only encourage fascism, not destroy it. As Nick Cohen put it in the Observer;
"After the refusal of the entire British press to print innocuous Danish cartoons, the stench of death is in the air. It is now ridiculous and impossible to talk about a fearless disregard for easily offended sensibilities."
So should we tolerate the intolerant?
AC Grayling has the best answer to this;
"No. Tolerance has to protect itself. It can easily do so by saying that anyone can put a point of view, but no-one can force another to accept it. The only coercion should be that of argument, the only obligation should be to honest reasoning."
We forget this at our peril.