We have plenty of room for holocaust deniers--as prompts to learn about the holocaust, and as warnings, much like flat-earthers, about how people can get so divorced from reality when following ideology that they can manage to disbelieve incredible mountains of evidence including reports from survivors, the liberating forces, the prison guards, records of the operation, records of planning the operation, etc. etc. etc..

Ideally, nobody would want to invite a holocaust denier to speak for the same reason one wouldn't invite a flat-earther or a moon-is-made-of-cheeser: it's patently absurd because we each individually know enough to recognize for ourselves that it is absurd. If people do want to invite a holocaust denier, then firstly, something went wrong with your education, and secondly, the appropriate thing to do is to invite a historian also to make them look like a fool (which they are).

Otherwise, we forget how to actually demonstrate to others and even to ourselves that the holocaust did indeed happen. It becomes a cultural artifact: "the-holocaust-is-true-and-don't-dare-you-say-otherwise". This is fragile and unconvincing.

So, no--even holocaust deniers shouldn't be cancelled while there are a significant number of people who want to hear them. Their views should not be protected from scrutiny and rebuttal, but that's a totally different thing.

I agree that The Bluest Eye shouldn't be banned for the same reason I think holocaust denialism shouldn't be banned. That is: when you have controversial positions, the thing to do as a society is to talk them through, not suppress them (or ram them down everyone's throat with no dissent allowed).