The judge decided to gratuitously determine whether the holocuast happened (surprise! it did!), and then found for the defendant. i presume the judge thought he could “settle” the issue for all time, but really, all the judge has done was convince those conspiracy nuts that he was in on it. If you believe a conspiracy that massive and thorough, the belief essentially becomes nonfalsifiable.

So, since it was probably useless, convincing literally no one, i say he shouldn’t have bothered. After all, there is no question Irving denied that the holocaust happened, so he was a holocaust denier. His claim in court papers that the holocaust didn’t actually happen is beside the point. i mean imagine if by some wild series of events the idiot was right and the holocaust didn’t happen. that wouldn’t change the fact that he was a holocaust denier; it would just mean that being one is not such a bad thing.

In that case the historian accused of calling him a holocaust denier wasn’t particularly upset. i guess she reveled in the publicity of getting to prove the holocaust. but american free speech advocates can rightfully feel a shiver down their spine hearing that story.