“A Future American History Reviewed” by Karen A. Olson (of Boulder Denver at the time of publication) was the Colorado state prize winning essay in American Voices: Prize-winning Essays on Freedom of Speech, Censorship and Advertising Bans published by Philip Morris USA in 1987. More about the crappy old book here.

Olson’s essay is nothing more than an exchange of six letters between the fictional characters Ben Fintz, editor of the journal, American History Revisited, and Karen, a contributing author to the journal.

The year is 2191. It is clear from the first letter than Karen and Ben are both professionally and personally acquainted, and we surmise are of the same socioeconomic bracket in late 22nd American society. Ben has offered Karen a writing assignment, “an article on the merger between the executive and judicial branches” that occurred in the late 21st century. Not being an expert in “politilegal history,” Karen shies away from that assignment, but offers an alternative: an article about the repeal and abolition of the First Amendment.

The letter exchange chronicles Karen’s research, and her and Ben’s reactions to her findings.

[For the sake of ease of reading, I’ve omitted many of the ellipses that would indicate I’m quoting from much longer paragraphs/letters.]

January 12, 2191

Dear Ben,

I’ve recently read some publications from the 1980s and 1990s, and I’ve run across a few pieces that shed light on the events that preceded the abolition of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Prevailing wisdom maintains that this peculiar little law just withered away of its own irrelevancy. However, I think I could make the case that a series of well-meaning but misdirected efforts was actually responsible for the death of unrestricted freedom of speech and press.

Contrary to popular belief, Americans in the 20th century did appear to place value on the First Amendment. The rhetoric of the period shows that, at least in theory, they held the concept in high esteem. In my article, I would argue that they never intended to abolish any part of the so-call “bill of Rights”; I will develop the hypothesis that they simply cut away at certain applications of the amendment until, ultimately, there was no amendment left.

Karen goes on to acknowledge that Ben may not be sympathetic to the idea. Indeed, he is not.

February 28, 2191

Dear Karen,

You have already anticipated my objection: Your topic is simply not important enough to warrant an assignment. Everyone agrees that unrestricted freedom of speech is a mad idea. Censorship is the only viable solution to deal with those who would contaminate innocent minds with unwise, false or even dangerous propositions.

You write as if the original intention of the Bill of Rights was to allow anyone to say or write anything he or she pleased. I expect you are mistaken here. Although I have not personally read Thomas Jefferson on the subject, I cannot believe such a brilliant man would advocate something so reckless.

Because of their personal relationship, he does not reject the idea outright and instead suggests she take a humorous tone by including other antiquated laws, “those laws that ban spitting on Sunday” and so on. He concludes by asking her, should she persist, to send periodic updates and by reminding her that no matter his decision “our Board of Directors must approve the content.”

Karen will pursue the idea.

March 3, 2191

Dear Ben,

I hope you did not confuse my enthusiasm for the topic with any softheaded notion that censorship is wrong.

Nevertheless, I am touched by the naive sincerity of the American people in the last half of the 20th century. The more I read, the more I am convinced that they really supported freedom of expression. Given their low level of education, simplicity is to be expected. … advanced minds were able to see the dangers in a flirtation with anarchy.

Karen then parenthetically notes that the masses did not change their collective minds about censorship. “Rather the advocates had to move slowly, issue by issue.” Repeat. Had the advocates been less skilled, the masses might have resisted… .

Upon re-reading her own words, she corrects herself.

yet my research shows that [the advocates of censorship] were as unaware as their followers of their destination. They did the right things for the wrong reasons.

Having not heard from Ben in several weeks, Karen assumes all is well and sends another update.