It's impossible to cast judgment on such a letter without understanding what materials, exactly, the authors of the letter have a problem with. If the library is stocking pornography or hate propaganda or something, I'd be more on their side than against. (I did, however, find much of the letter to be unwisely worded: Bush and Iraq have nothing to do with this, and I strongly disagree that a public library should by definition be a place where children do not require parental supervision.)

Although I believe public libraries, being paid for by tax money, should have significantly less power to choose what to stock than a private library (which should have absolute power), I don't think this can be called a free speech issue. The tenet of free speech gives you the right to speak, not the right to be heard. If it's illegal to publish an opinion, that's a significantly more severe matter than whether or not libraries will stock it. Is it so terrible that what a public library stocks should be, at least in part, in the hands of those whose taxes pay for it?

Obviously, one can't please everybody. But the people behind this letter, assuming their own taxes pay for this library, have the moral and ethical prerogative to voice opinions about how the library should be run and to have those opinions be considered. If, after further investigation, it comes to light that some preponderance of the majority of taxpayers paying for that library have the same sorts of issues with how it is run, why *shouldn't* changes be made?

All that said, without knowing anything more than the content of that letter, I'd probably side against it. I tend to err on the side of personal responsibility, judgment, and parental guidance, not forcing our environments to take care of these things for us. But, then again, my taxes don't pay for libraries in Texas.