In regards to your March 29 editorial ("Borders control"), you're absolutely right that Borders can choose to sell, or not sell, any material that they feel fit. If everyone in America wanted to read this magazine, and the Borders management found it personally offensive, they would be well within their rights to withhold it.
Secondly, you are right that a corporation wants to make money. If they fear a boycott, they would also be perfectly justified in protecting their revenue.
However, what you ignore is the official statement from Borders' spokesperson Beth Bingham: "For us, the safety and security of our customers and employees is a top priority, and we believe that carrying this issue could challenge that priority," (AP News, March 26).
Borders is, of course, totally justified here. However, I took Kurtz's statements as a response to those who would threaten the safety of anyone who expresses an opinion that offends them, more than towards Borders Books. And, it might not be government censorship, but in a democracy, a small but vocal minority threatening the safety of those with whom they disagree is certainly troubling.
