Re: @Dodgy Geezer
Holocaust denial, like many other cries of "foul", is a whole lot more subtle than that. You posit an absurdity, but the people being tarred by the brush are much more likely to be historians questioning not the event of the Holocaust, but particular details or stories from it.
The problem with laws that ban Holocaust denial is that they can have a sort of Streisland effect. After all, the full-whack denier can point to the ban and say that if the facts of the Holocaust are so secure, safe, and solid, why are they banning the mere act of denying them. He can go on and say that if these "facts" are so weak that they must be backed up by the law, that they cannot stand by themselves, then there is not enough reliable evidence that it happened.
It is *specious* reasoning, of course - the law's theoretical basis is more likely to be a question of blurring the lines of hate-speech and similar concepts than trying to shore up weak historical evidence with legislation - but that doesn't matter to the "true believer". He wants something he can point to that says that the preponderance of evidence against his belief is just plain wrong, lies, or whatever, and these laws serve as well as anything else.
Now I should make it clear that I'm not trying to deny that the Holocaust happened. Some of the details, especially the detailed numbers, do sound "inflated", but clearly *something* happened that is more or less as described.
It's still a bad idea to enshrine such a ban in law. If the facts can stand by themselves without the aid of the law, let them do so, and stop giving deniers a stick to beat the history with.