Wanton Politics

The Library of Congress annually pays to have three dozen magazines produced in Braille so that they can be read by the blind. One of the magazines is Playboy, whose articles--but not pictures--have been made available in Braille under this program since 1970. But last year, after huffing and puffing about “wanton sex” and such, Congress cut $103,000 from the library’s budget--the exact amount that the Braille edition of Playboy costs.

In making the cut, Congress said nothing about Playboy. It didn’t have to. Sensing the mood of Congress and seeking to comply, the librarian of Congress, Daniel J. Boorstin, dropped the Braille edition of Playboy.

But last week, in response to a suit by Playboy and several organizations for the blind, U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan in Washington ruled that Boorstin had acted unconstitutionally and that his decision to halt the Braille Playboy constituted viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment. Hogan’s decision was absolutely correct. The government may not pick and choose among printed material on the basis of whether it likes what’s written there.

Obviously every librarian, even the librarian of Congress, makes choices all the time about what material to acquire and what to pass by. There are about 40,000 books a year published in the United States, and no library can accommodate all of them. The libraries don’t have the space, much less the funds. Librarians must apply professional judgments of quality, reader interest, breadth of subject matter and the like in deciding what to buy. But when they make political judgments they are crossing the line between acceptable and unacceptable criteria.

Just as a librarian may not decree “No books by Republicans (or Democrats) in this library,” so may the librarian of Congress not cut off funds for Playboy in Braille because some congressmen find it morally wrong. Public officials may not substitute their political and moral opinions for the readers’. They may not favor one viewpoint over another. That is the message of Hogan’s ruling.