[anon1385]

I think we have very different definitions of 'respectable'. Maybe it's an American thing where absolutist free speech is worshipped as part of the cult of civic religion, but where I live Holocaust denial[1] isn't considered respectable or acceptable.

If you mean it should be taken seriously because it is influential, then yes I suppose it's worth knowing what they are saying (today that's defending child sex trafficking apparently, but that's not new ground for libertarians). Freep, /pol/ and Stormfront are all influential these days, but that doesn't make them respectable either.

[1] https://pando.com/2014/07/24/as-reasons-editor-defends-its-r...

[tptacek]

I read Ames's piece, and I read Reason's response here:

https://reason.com/blog/2014/07/26/did-reason-really-publish...

... both Ames and Reason link to a scan of the entire issue. I am with Reason: it's embarrassing for Reason that they ran pieces by people who would go on to become figureheads in Holocaust denial, but Ames is stretching the truth rather dramatically about the content of the actual issue.

I don't know anything about Reason and apartheid support. It wouldn't surprise me. The National Review has also been accused of supporting apartheid, and they are the house organ of mainstream conservatism.