No, it should be treated with ridicule and contempt, but not as a criminal matter.
^ And the thing is, it very much is treated this way among 99% of people, which makes the argument that it should be against the law moot. The only reason some form of speech should be against the law is if it's causing real demonstrable harm and is so widespread that it can't be contained through informal means.
You don't ban everything you dislike even if it is absurd and contemptible. Not just because of some idealistic liberal principles, but because you usually don't even need to. Not having holocaust denial against the law in this country hasn't led to widespread belief that it's not real in the same way that not banning KKK rallies didn't stop them from disintegrating and becoming completely irrelevant and powerless. In fact, it would be more likely in the case of holocaust denial that it would have the opposite effect.
Well, having laws against Holocaust denial
here, in the USA would be unnecessary and counter-productive.
But they were necessary for the de-Nazification process Germany went through after WWII. Take a look at Japan for a counterexample, where they didn't have that same sort of national reckoning, and where their attitude towards their history is... shall we say, less healthy and less honest.
It really depends on the context. In general, it's best to keep free speech protections as wide as possible, but there are cases where exceptions are necessary.
Poll
