Independent of what people believe of him or his defense of Faurisson's freedom of speech one thing is clear, they have both been the target of extremely aggressive smearing campaigns by Israel.
I would defend the right to freedom of speech of people who believe the earth is flat, that does not mean “I support the flat-earth movement”
Ultimately that leads to Popper's Paradox of Tolerance.[1] Do you defend the absolute freedoms of those whose goal is to destroy that freedom, along with you and many others with it? If yes, how do you stop them from accomplishing their goals? If no, where do you draw the line? (To be clear, I consider these critical but ultimately rhetorical questions with no obvious good answers.)
I would defend the right to freedom of speech of people who believe the earth is flat, that does not mean “I support the flat-earth movement”