Ingemann gave the perfect answer here:
This is really one of those issue with a naive black-white dichotomy not only not make a lot of sense, but also show that the keeper of such opinions is a little simple.
Was it a good idea, that Germany, France and other countries made such a ban after WW2; yes. Would it make a lot of sense to make the same law in Denmark, Sweden or Finland after WW2; not really. Do Germany or France need to keep it today; not really. Do it harm anybody that they keep this law; yes some pretty horrible people. Do I care that these people are harmed by this law; not really. Is abolishing the law worth the whining and international condemnation from Jewish organisation and Israel; again not really.
Conclusion: Keep the law if it already exist, but don't create such a law if it doesn't exist.
This. I could see an argument for quietly ceasing to enforce these laws over time, but repealing them outright doesn't strike me as a good idea.
Holocaust denial is not illegal here (though depending on the phrasing it may be considered "group insult"), but selling Mein Kampf used to be, and the court legalizing it caused so many terrible people to air atrocious views that I would much have preferred to keep it illegal (though the ban may be reinstated by a higher court). But muh freedumb of speech, and Jews should just get over it, something something.