SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE DECISIONS

I write regarding the Tattered Cover's recent court victory, dealing with
their right to withhold information concerning who buys books about
methamphetamine labs.

Predictably, there's been jubilation in the media over this triumph for the
First Amendment. Something about the bright light of freedom forestalling
jackboots in our bedrooms. Sadly, I haven't seen much examination of
whether the Tattered Cover (and owner Joyce Meskis) was right, in the sense
of being socially responsible, in selling these books. Beyond
constitutionality, was it ethical to sell books that encouraged and enabled
a dangerous crime? What responsibility should Meskis bear, in terms of
justifying to the communitym her choice in this matter?

And where, using the light of the First Amendment, would she discern the
line between what should and should not be sold? Had Tim McVeigh given us a
how-to manual on blowing up innocent people, should we have expected that
to show up in the Tattered Cover?

Our Constitution is a blessed blueprint for respecting the rights of our
fellow citizens in a free society. The rights it bestows come with
responsibilities that are magnified by the lens of freedom. How to make
moral, responsible choices is up to us. Meskis may have the right to sell
these books, but that doesn't make it right to sell these books. She should
now do the responsible thing and take them off the shelves.

John Rampe Lakewood