I am deeply offended by the recent Op-ed column (Sept. 25-26) by Stephen King regarding “NYPD Blues.” This column made reference to “arrogantly un-American,” “letter-writing, phone-calling zealots” and “special interest groups affiliated with the Christian fundamentalist churches.”

Name calling, implied put-downs, and broad-brush stereotypical strokes are the hallmark of arrogance to me. I expect acceptance and respect for differing opinions. Telling me to “mind my own business,” and “if I don’t like it, look the other way,” are condescending and offensive imperatives.

I understand the controversy surrounding “NYPD Blues” to pertain to the explicit violence portrayed by this particular show. The issue of TV violence contributing to social violence is one which deserves study and respect.

The violence taking place in this country is my business, and the business of all Americans. I do not accept the view that we should “not look.” Many abuses occur in our society because we are taught “don’t look” and “don’t talk.”

Let us use language which opens communication and discussion of issues affecting all our lives. Let us show respect for differing views and take seriously the concerns of all citizens. Censorship certainly will not cure social ills, but you can be sure that silencing dissenters through disrespect, name-calling, and stereotyping contribute to them. Liane Giambalvo Hampden

As the powerful authority on terror, author Stephen King unsheathes his pen to smight the Christian community as well as slay community values; his influence is mighty. My slingshot is modest, for I write letters of support or protest as an American who has the freedom of speech and protest.

Since 1960 the Justice Department reports violent crime has increased 500 percent; do you recall the programs of the ’60s? The entertainment media have a role in this statistic with violent, “adult” programs as well as its innuendoes in sitcoms. For example, WVII, which programmed “NYPD Blue,” gave this past Sunday’s viewers an afternoon of bed-hopping movies for family viewing. Europeans say we are sick; we are not healthy.

What was amusing in the column was that though the mighty Stephen decried the voices of the offended Christians’ campaign against that program, as the column closes, he roars an exhortation to his like-minded individuals to do the same. Where is his hypocrisy?

Write, write and write if you, a citizen of America, object to something that offends you. Support those values important to you. Citizens do have the right of free speech and the duty to speak out, since our country began. Stephen calls participating in freedom of speech “arrogantly un-American” but where would this editorial page or political campaigns be without verbal or written participation? … E.J. Morrison East Eddington

In response to Stephen King’s Op-Ed defense of a television series that has come under attack by various groups lately, I must point out that his urging readers to write to the station (address included) to keep the show on the air even if they haven’t seen the show is itself organizing a pressure group. I have no sympathy with the fundamentalist groups that have their own narrow-minded agenda which is so reminiscent of the McCarthy era, but pressure groups come in all sizes and colors.

It is, however, the kernel of his argument that I cannot accept; that the answer to unacceptable shows is to change channels. “If you don’t like it, don’t watch it!” is the easy and facile answer to critics of television. Would Mr. King justify chains of pornographic bookshops opening in the cities even if they use the inaccurate term of “adult” bookshops and use the argument that residents may ignore their presence and not patronize them? I think not. It would be too gross a violation of public morality. By now we all recognize the cynicism of television producers who use the First Amendment unashamedly to justify the mayhem, violence and lack of quality of their shows.

I regret to see Mr. King, a skilled craftsman of popular fiction, in the camp of those who justify the production of junk TV. That this great medium could be subverted to an opiate reflects the victory of the profit motive over responsibile use of the air waves. The wasteland is still vast in spite of the efforts of a few producers and public television which is not completely faultless either.

I was amused by his contemptuous reference to “serious meaningful drama.” Funny thing is, I was always entertained by reading and seeing O’Neil, Dickens, Steinbeck and all those horrible “meaningful” people. Everyone to his own program, right, Stephen? Ernest Nukanen Belfast