No, not quite, since you seem to imply that racist views are OK as long as people do not incite to violence.

I'm not saying they're OK.  I'm saying that there will always be racists, and that people should not be thrown in jail merely for being racists.  Ignorance and hatred are not criminal acts in and of themselves.

Well, this is exactly my point.  The owner of ET is the equivalent to the State in this case. In society we abide by mutually accepted principles too.  The non-written one's (social conduct of accepted behaviour) which is the relation between individuals and the written one's (the laws) which is the relation between the citizen and the State.

But the owner of ET is not the same as the State.  The State's actions are necessarily limited, to avoid infringement on our rights.  You and I have no rights as ET members, because we have no share in ownership in ET.  The owner of ET can (say) throw us out at any time and for any reason.  The State cannot.

No, not if he is advocating (see voicing), in this case, racial hatred and incites discrimination.  The Human Rights Charter doesn't only cover the rights to physical attributes but also mental ones.  The denial of Holocaust is perceived infringement on the victims of the Holocaust and their relatives and thus is punishable by Law:

At what point is he inciting racial discrimination or hatred?  Simply denying an event, no matter how hideous that event may have been (and this was among the most hideous), is not an infringment on the rights of the victims, their relatives, or the Jewish people as a whole.  We don't have a natural right to be shielded from offensive comments.

In fact their views are often as intolerant as the views of Irving and Gollnisch and thus in conflict with the accepted ethics of the society at large.  It is a misconception that the laws are made to protect deviation, especially if this deviation is detrimental to other citizens or people. In fact it is in such cases the law are to protect the victims from the offender.  As I have said and shown in my previous comment

I may be bordering on echoing Crazy Maggie Thatcher in this paragraph, but how do we establish the accepted ethics of the "society" at large?  (I use quotation marks, because I think the word is used to justify all sorts of things, when there is little or no way of establishing such ethics.)  If we push this to extremes, you arrive at the slippery-slope discussed above by Jerome and I.

"Don't kill" and "Don't steal" are constitutional laws, not because of ethical considerations, but because of their direct relation to issues of privacy, freedom and economics -- namely, that these three things cannot exist without those two protections.

(By the way, I in no way mean this to be taken as my telling those of you from Europe how to run your own countries and the EU.  Just wanted to make that clear.)

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.