OUTCOME OF TATTERED COVER CASE TROUBLING

As much as I believe in the personal freedoms afforded to U.S. citizens,
something about the ruling concerning Tattered Cover's privacy policy
bothers me ("Tattered Cover wins ruling," Rocky Mountain News, April 9).
Perhaps it's because I am adamant, also, that the rights of an individual
should never supersede the rights or protection of the majority of the people.

If this was about whether a housewife had the right to read pornography or
a child having access to a book on communism, it might offend me morally,
but obviously doesn't threaten my life or liberties.

Here, it is the actual subject matter that makes all the difference. The
reading habits of a methamphetamine dealer concern me greatly, as much as
my right to know whether a convicted sex offender resides in my
neighborhood or whether my next-door neighbor is making bombs.

If such knowledge can prevent or convict a criminal of committing crimes,
then such knowledge is imperative.

Additionally, even when you use a broad scope in interpreting the First and
Fourth amendments, I see no area of either that promises privacy.

Evelyn Wallace

Denver