I found the column by Murray B. Light, editor, on Nov. 27 to be hypocritical, self-serving and deliciously ironic. Mr. Light expresses concern (and rightly so) about the erosion of "freedom of press" rights as guaranteed under the First Amendment, a right near and dear to his heart and understandably so.
He applies terms such as "horrendous," "shocking," "horrible" and "abomination" to the precedent the Supreme Court has set in regard to suppression of the Noriega tapes. I agree with him and his fears completely.
However, Mr. Light and his newspaper are not so concerned if someone else's ox is being gored. I refer to the long-standing News campaign to diminish some of our Second Amendment rights. If the term "Second Amendment" is substituted for the term "First Amendment" in his article, and the term "the right of people to keep and bear arms" is substituted for the "freedom of the press," do not his words ring just as true and logical?
By what leap of reason do you selectively choose which amendments or which passages are important or unimportant? Your newspaper's long-standing campaign against our right to keep and bear arms is evidence of your inclination to be selective about which constitutional guarantees should be protected and which are unworthy of protection.
CHARLES V. CLEMENCY