I find it interesting how buzz phases such as "Holocaust industry" and "other people died too" are repeated in many responses. The David Irvings of the world do indeed have their successes. The "industry" required was because many guilty institutions and banks refused to respond to the pleas for help and assistance. Denial was the safe defence for these institutions and individuals. Austria has many, many reasons to allow a law to assure justice. Germany has basically come to terms with it's guilt by assuring that criminals cannot hide behind denial. David Ellison, Pawtucket, USA

The truth, for what little it seems to matter to anyone in this debate, is that Mr Irving does not deny the Holocaust nor ever has. He has however denied that gas chambers were ever used because there is no evidence for them. Vincent O'Bairn, London

I completely agree with Mr Macintyre's comments for Britain and the USA. However, not for Austria. It is a shame to say for me as an Austrian, but we still need such legal barriers, because Nazism has not been entirely rejected in my country. As long as VIP-politicians like the rabble-rouser Haider can address SS veterans meetings to sing their praise, we cannot have the full freedom enjoyed by other nations in this respect. Hans Stegbuchner, Vienna, Austria

It is certainly true that Austria has been immorally lax about the persecution of Nazi war criminals. However, this does not excuse David Irving, who has quite obviously ignored a law imposed to prevent the resurrection of racist political movements in our country. Independent law courts will decide whether he has digressed the borders of free speech or not. Michael Krebs, Wiener Neustadt, Austria

Free speech may be a mainstay of democracy, but it stops at the point of crying "fire!" in a crowded theatre. Holocaust denial is not just a matter of free speech. It enables those 40-odd Nazi murderers still at large to remain so. It encourages anti-Semitism and the violence that goes with it. Holocaust denial is one of those things that simply cannot be included under the right to free speech. Name and address withheld

I applaud your fair and insightful article on the subject of the imprisonment of the "historian" David Irving. Wholehearted agreement is the only sentiment that this particular Austrian can profess. However, it is highly unlikely that the laws against Holocaust denial in Austria and Germany will ever be repealed. History forbids it, and political realities ensure that only a government with suicidal tendencies would attempt to restore free speech completely. While I would love to argue that the ruling parties in Austria won't change the law because they are acutely aware of the historical burden and particular moral responsibility arising from the awful deeds of previous generations, this would be utter humbug. Not only have a good number of putative war criminals been allowed to go unbothered by governments of every hue, it is also a sad indictment of the status quo that while an example is being made of the Holocaust denier Irving, a member of the Austrian government questions the relevance of defining parts of the constitution, abjures minority rights enshrined in international treaties and publicly mocks the supreme court - and it is not even clear that he will be stripped of his ministerial brief. David Irving is a scapegoat. You are entirely right to call for his release, and your defence of free expression is all the more laudable for the repugnance of the opinions in question. However, allow me to confess the hope that David Irving is subjected to a mortifyingly tedious trial and a damp cell for just a little while before they let him go. Matthias Mennel, Munich

I have a friend who became a Jesuit, while his brothers and sisters and became anti-Catholic born-again Christians. His answer to their extreme outbursts is to ask for more, "Really, why do you say that?"; "That's an interesting interpretation, tell me more about it," and so on, until their slogans disappear into a morass of circular logic and foolishness. Given true freedom of speech, Irving, and other ideologues, will disappear into the same morass. Archbishop Desmond Tutu's dad used to say, "Don't raise your voice, improve your argument." I say; don't silence Irving, let him speak so we can prove him wrong. Name and address withheld

Ben Macintyre's analysis is largely accurate. Austria has a poor record when it comes to dealing with its own, be they Holocaust criminals or the present generation of deniers. Although Holocaust denial is a crime, the law is seldom invoked against Austrian citizens. After World War Two, Austria introduced a system called proporz (proportion), which was designed to prevent a return to Nazi extremism. Proporz allows the two main political parties to carve up the whole economy between them. This reaches absurd depths as we have the equivalent of the AA for conservatives and the RAC for the socialists! Proporz may have been understandable during the post war years but is it appropriate now? Ironically, by locking out the far right, proporz contributed to frustration and the rise of the far right Freedom Party. Last year, Jörg Haider left the FP to form a new party which has attracted minimal support. The new FP leader, Heinz Christian Strache expects to increase its representation in this year's general election with a strong anti-foreigner and anti-EU campaign. As far as David Irving is concerned, he needs a lead counsel from outside Austria who will use the opportunity of the trial to expose hypocrisy in this country. Yes, freedom of speech should be defended and this means that Irving's views need to be rigorously opposed. Name and address withheld

Jailing David Irving and turning him into a free speech martyr is surely counter-productive. However, simply ignoring him is also problematic. He may have been speaking to a bunch of crackpots in a cellar in Austria, but his malignant lies have wider distribution. People who weren't in that cellar still hear the lies; they become a part of the general hum of misinformation that circles the world. So, for example, the story that all the Jews evacuated the World Trade Center just before the disaster, or that AIDS is the result of deliberate bio warfare against Africans, stay within public sight, even if in a small corner of the screen. They never quite go away if just ignored, but can leap back into prominence at a moment's notice. My solution? Education. When a crank like Irving appears, we must confront his lies with truth. It's an exhausting process, but by meeting his untruths their flimsiness becomes more apparent. If we just ignore them, the ignorant will eventually believe that we have no counter-arguments. Irving never fatigues in his quest. Lovers of truth need to be at least as steadfast. Michael Walsh, Chicago

David Irving's opinions are highly unpopular but he is surely entitled to express them. He is not a criminal and it cannot be right to hold him in prison for over two months pending trial for remarks allegedly made in 1989. I agree that he should be released. Name and address withheld

Jailing Irving is counter-productive because it suggests that his denial is dangerous, which in turn suggests that there may be some truth in it. They could even create a "far-right" martyr out of him. Do those jailing him even realise this? It is paradoxical that the Austrian government must repress someone who says that a previous repressive Austrian government did not in fact repress anyone. Perhaps the lesson to be drawn is simply that freedom of information rather than repression of information (or information providers whether misguided/malevolent or not) is the answer. Rudy Parker, Boston, MS, USA

One doesn't have to begin a defence for David Irving's rights with an excuse and an apology. The fact is that even if it were Satan rotting in a dungeon, and Irving is far from the devil the media makes him out to be, he would still have the right to fundamental freedoms and human rights. We need Irving. Liberty needs dissent to thrive. I admire his audacity, his unique writing style, his provocative tickling of my brain and his talent to make me think and question. I have never heard him advocate violence and do not see him as a danger. I wish I could say the same for those who wish to tell us what we may read, see or hear. They are the true dangers in a free society. Where are the civil libertarians? Lee Buhalis, Pembroke, Maine, USA