The imprisonment of David Irving is ridiculous - after studying the Holocaust for a number of years at University, there were numerous historians who had theories about the Holocaust, differing from the severity of the Holocaust to its non-existence. Are we going to imprison everyone who does not conform? Victoria Wood, Leeds

The imprisonment of David Irving for his thought crimes makes one think that there's something rotten in this whole story. The more one digs into this Holocaust thing the less it all adds up. In France you can get jailed for publicly doubting "the conclusions of the Nuremberg trials". Among those conclusions is the "fact" that it was the Germans who murdered the Poles in the Katyn woods. Everyone, including the Russians, now admits it was the Russians. What gives? Maybe a thorough revision of all the facts and conclusions of World War II wouldn't hurt after all? Dan Reynolds, Kristinehamn, Sweden

As a Jew, I was pleased that David Irving was sentenced to a jail term. I regard the argument concerning the freedom of speech as fair, but it suffers from a variety of problems. Freedom of speech should not allow for the spread of racist, homophobic or anti-Semitic comments. The comments made by Irving in his speeches which are the subject of the action can be clearly viewed as anti-Semitic. Freedom of speech should be encouraged as without the freedom to criticise our government's actions we are in danger of becoming a tyrannical state. There should be limits to prevent racist, homophobic or anti-Semitic comments being expressed. Abu Hamza was convicted for calling for the destruction of the infidels, which is interpreted as the West. Should he be released due to his right to free speech? Or should Nick Griffin the BNP leader also be free to make speeches with impunity under the veil of freedom of expression? Democracy grants us the freedom to express ourselves but it doesn't grant a person carte blanche to say anything at all. Simeon Newman, Essex

Many describe this sentence as a sign of the decline of free speech and freedom of expression, as part of the ever growing political correctness apparent in society. This is not to do with freedom of expression - these aren't just his beliefs, this is a man propagating a lie as truth. The idea that this man has a right to so dangerously and patently lie, belittling the horrific events of the Holocaust is what seems sick to me. Truth is something which needs to be protected by the law, and I'm glad to see that it has been. Phil James, Eastbourne

No-one's beliefs (or disbeliefs) should be reason for any jail sentence. They could be reason for disapproval, opposition, disdain, anything else, but not jail confinement. World leaders and people in power are still afraid of revolts, rebellions, revolutions and so on. They haven't learnt that what must happen will happen anyway, sooner or later. All other considerations are redundant. Pop Virgiliu, Bucharest, Romania

What now? If denying the Holocaust merits imprisonment for three years, how long will it be before religious fanatics similarly demand imprisonment for those who deny the existence of an Almighty God (or gods) - and for how long? Here comes the Inquisition! What goes around, comes around. Gordon Wilson, London

I do believe that the conviction of David Irving for "denying the Holocaust" sets a dangerous standard for historical research. The nature of study into the events of the past allows us to form our own conclusions from the evidence at our disposal. Mr Irving never denied that the Jewish existence in Europe was destroyed; he merely questioned how it was done at one camp. I believe that credible proof exists to point to the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz and do not concur with any of the findings of Third Reich revisionists. However, history has always been and should remain an open field. Our past throws up many contentious issues that we are free to debate. Why should the Holocaust be any different? Neil Wilson, Liverpool

Daniel Finkelstein is right. However warped or wicked his views may be, Irving doesn't belong in jail for having uttered them. The sentence is, in effect, a transgression of the principle of free speech. Ernest Werner, Trumansburg, New York

The fact remains that people like David Irving incite racial hatred and anti-Semitism and there is a difference between the rights to free speech and purporting the belief that the Holocaust never happened. Irving's punishment should not be imprisonment, but instead a life sentence of community work at Yad Vashem. Name and address withheld

I value freedom of speech, so I am uncomfortable with the idea of Holocaust-denial being a criminal offence. That said, you've only to consider the actions and beliefs of some Muslims in relation to Jews to recognise that we are danger of suffering another Holocaust. Name and address withheld

Daniel Finkelstein's argument against jailing David Irving on the ground that lies should be fought with truth alone, and not with the criminal law, is a forceful case that deserves to be heard. But I find that David Cesarani's counter-argument has the greater merit. Cesarani observes that Holocaust denial is not just an expression of eccentric opinion, neither does it represent an attempt to apply overly rigorous criticism to the testing of truth claims. Holocaust denial presupposes that, after 1945, the Jews systematically fabricated material and documentary evidence and groomed fake "survivors" as false witnesses. It accuses them of procuring the arraignment of innocent Germans on trumped-up charges for non-existent crimes, and then of milking the gentile nations for all the money and sympathy they could. It reinforces the stereotype of Jews as powerful, merciless and conspiratorial. Cesarani's argument deserves to prevail over Finkelstein's, because Holocaust denial is inseparable from the defamation of the Jews as a people, and of individual Holocaust survivors many of whom are still living, for the purpose - or at least with the tendency - of making National Socialism an acceptable political alternative once again. Michael Petek, Brighton

Putting a supposed Holocaust denier behind bars doesn't help anyone. It may seem like a good idea to throw every dissenting voice in jail, but that in itself is a very dark path that is in direct contradiction to the freedom of speech. Austria should repeal the "Verbotsgesetz" law. It's something that was conceived in 1946 in order to prevent the National Socialist party being formed again. As such, it has no place whatsoever in modern society. Michael Wootton, Sutton Coldfield

Holocaust denial is the latest incarnation of the "blood libel" against the Jewish people, an attempt to portray the Jews as devious liars who have hoodwinked the world into believing in the Holocaust for their own material gain. It seems ironic that it should be sought to defend David Irving's right to lie about the Holocaust under the banner of free speech, when he himself tried to limit Deborah Lipstadt's same right by suing her for libel after she called him a Holocaust denier. He lost. Jonathon McKeever, Milan