[
    {
        "role": "user",
        "content": "some%20time%20in%20the%2080%27s%20the%20US%20budjet%20wanted%20to%20remove%20Playboy%20and%20popular%20machanics%20from%20the%20magazines%20from%20the%20national%20library%20survice%20talking%20book%20program.%20can%20you%20find%20any%20information%20on%20that.%20it%20didn%27t%20go%20through."
    },
    {
        "role": "assistant",
        "content": "Here\u2019s a well-documented summary of the controversy over Playboy (and similarly \u201cPopular Mechanics\u201d in passing) and the U.S. National Library Service\u2019s (NLS) talking\u2010books / braille magazines program in the 1980s. The proposal to remove Playboy was real (particularly from the braille program), triggered serious debate, and ultimately failed under judicial review. I found no solid evidence that \u201cPopular Mechanics\u201d was formally targeted for removal\u2014other magazines were referenced in debates, but Playboy was the main subject.\n\n---\n\n### What is the NLS Talking-Book / Braille Program\n\n- The National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped (NLS, part of the Library of Congress) provides braille and audio editions of books and magazines so people who are blind or physically unable to read print can access them. ([law.justia.com](https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/644/811/1558680/?utm_source=openai))  \n- Playboy had been among the dozen(s) of magazines reproduced in braille under NLS since the early 1970s. These editions included only textual material (articles, interviews, essays) \u2014 **no photographs, cartoons, ads, centerfolds**. ([law.justia.com](https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/644/811/1558680/?utm_source=openai))\n\n---\n\n### The Effort to Remove Playboy\n\n- In March 1981, Congressman Chalmers P. Wylie (R-Ohio) asked the Librarian of Congress to stop the production and distribution of braille editions of *Playboy*. The NLS conducted internal reviews (1981) and concluded Playboy fell within its selection criteria, and thus should remain in the program. ([law.justia.com](https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/644/811/1558680/?utm_source=openai))\n\n- In 1985, Wylie introduced an amendment to the Library of Congress appropriations bill, cutting $103,000 from the \u201cBooks for the Blind and Physically Handicapped\u201d budget. That sum was exactly what the Library had spent the prior year to produce the braille version of *Playboy*. The House voted 216-193 in favor of deleting that amount \u2014 effectively excluding *Playboy* from the program. ([latimes.com](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1985-08-01-we-4690-story.html?utm_source=openai))\n\n- During floor debate, Wylie argued that *Playboy* did not meet criteria for \u201cliterary merit,\u201d comparing it unfavorably to other magazines like *Good Housekeeping* or *Popular Mechanics*, both of which were still included in the program. ([congress.gov](https://www.congress.gov/99/crecb/1985/07/31/GPO-CRECB-1985-pt16-2-3.pdf?utm_source=openai))\n\n---\n\n### Outcome: Judicial Intervention & First Amendment\n\n- After the House amendment excluded *Playboy*, the program (via Librarian Daniel J. Boorstin) ceased issuing new braille editions of *Playboy* in 1985. ([washingtonpost.com](https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/national/1986/09/24/playboy-in-braille-revived/a71d0aad-03b2-4ea9-a723-d3f773182933/?utm_source=openai))  \n- Organizations including the American Council of the Blind, the Blinded Veterans Association, and the ALA filed suit. In August 1986, U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan ruled that the exclusion was unconstitutional, finding it \u201cviewpoint-based discrimination\u201d in violation of the First Amendment. He ordered the Library of Congress to resume producing *Playboy* in braille starting January 1987, to produce \u201ctalking book\u201d versions of *Playboy* issues from 1986, and to notify subscribers. ([law.justia.com](https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/644/811/1558680/?utm_source=openai))\n\n---\n\n### What About \u201cPopular Mechanics\u201d and Other Magazines?\n\n- In the debates (particularly by Rep. Wylie), *Popular Mechanics* was mentioned as an example of another magazine already included in the braille magazine program that was considered \u201cmore literate\u201d than *Playboy*, which bolstered his argument for removal. ([congress.gov](https://www.congress.gov/99/crecb/1985/07/31/GPO-CRECB-1985-pt16-2-3.pdf?utm_source=openai))  \n- However, I found **no credible record** of an actual proposal to remove *Popular Mechanics* or any magazines other than *Playboy* as a result of such appropriations amendments. The action was specific to *Playboy*. ([law.justia.com](https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/644/811/1558680/?utm_source=openai))\n\n---\n\n### Why the Removal Didn\u2019t \u201cGo Through\u201d\n\n- Although the House voted to remove funding in 1985, the ultimate decision was overturned through the courts. Judge Hogan\u2019s ruling in August 1986 compelled resumption of the braille editions. Thus, *Playboy* remained part of the program. ([washingtonpost.com](https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/national/1986/09/24/playboy-in-braille-revived/a71d0aad-03b2-4ea9-a723-d3f773182933/?utm_source=openai))\n\n- After the ruling, the NLS simply reissued *Playboy* in braille and as a \u201ctalking book\u201d (recorded audio) for 1986 issues, renewing service beginning in 1987. ([washingtonpost.com](https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/national/1986/09/24/playboy-in-braille-revived/a71d0aad-03b2-4ea9-a723-d3f773182933/?utm_source=openai))\n\n---\n\nIf you want, I can try to dig up the full legislative text of Wylie\u2019s amendment, or numbers on how many blind subscribers there were at the time, or more on the editorial policy criteria that allowed *Playboy* to qualify."
    }
]