For many of us, The Media Institute – an esteemed forum for convening, debating, and defending the First Amendment’s protections for American media – is affectionately known as “TMI.” In an acronym-heavy town, could that be confused with the slang meaning, “Too Much Information”?
Probably not. But even if it were, the label would still fit in context: The Institute champions the media industry’s access to and right to disseminate a broad range of information.
Thus, let the organization be accused of supporting a marketplace of ideas so rich in information that people can be informed and share with whomever their hearts’ desires about past and current events, as well as complex policy debates in government, communities, schools, society, or whatever topic of interest.
Throughout history, each generation has been marked by advances in communication and technology. From cave drawings to the process for launching Artemis II, humans have generated increasing amounts of information and expanded our understanding of the world around us.
That is, people generated, absorbed, processed, and turned information into useful actions. From this cyclic growth, we achieved remarkable feats (and sometimes despicable ones, too) to enhance our living standards and quality of life.
Yet almost every advancement in humanity has faced resistance, especially regarding technology and information. For example, the scribal community and others opposed the printing press not just because it threatened jobs but also due to fears of lower-quality books, distractions, misinformation, and the democratization of knowledge.
Essentially, they argued that this revolutionary development would overload common people with too much information. The opposition was so effective that some historians believe that excluding Arabic content from printing presses in the Ottoman Empire caused a 300-year delay in knowledge compared to its European counterparts.
Today, similar debates arise over new technologies such as artificial intelligence. But can a society have too much information – i.e., information overload or “infobesity”? If so, should political leaders intervene? Americans should clearly and loudly say “No” to both questions.
More books exist than one person could ever read in a lifetime. Consider that the Library of Congress has 39 million cataloged books, which experts estimate would take at least 140,000 years to read. Does this mean writing books should be banned? Similarly, the Metropolitan Museum of Art holds over 3 million works of art, which would take a single person months to examine. Should we prohibit painting because there’s too much of it? Ludicrous on its face.
Ideally, there should be as much content as humans and machines can create. This abundance facilitates creativity and shouldn’t be limited by fear or uneasiness, especially that of overstretched policymakers.
In the communications arena, the public is told to believe that adversarial debates on digital platforms, such as X, are harmful. Under this thinking, the punch, counterpunch, street-fighting style doesn’t qualify as speech or is somehow undignified.
On the contrary, dialogue on these platforms can validate users, enhance civil engagement, help challenge social norms, and more. That’s exactly the kind of communication worthy of the First Amendment’s ferocious guard. Directly critical and confrontational assertions may not have been appropriate in the Elizabethan Age, but they are in an MMA world.
In fairness, the slang TMI carries a so-called “ick factor” because it suggests the informer is revealing information that may be inappropriate or even unsavory. Ironically, only the person offering the information is the proper judge.
Historically, many forms of content now accepted – such as anatomy books, sex-ed classes, condom ads, Family Guy episodes, and so many others – would have been taboo 100 years ago. Aside from obscene content and considerations for children’s access, very little is off-limits today. This broad freedom allows content creators to explore new ideas, leading to brilliant outcomes.
If critics find some discourse problematic or oppose it outright, the suggested solution, as many have argued, is to encourage more speech and diverse outlets rather than suppress unwanted views. Attempting to silence such speech is ultimately ineffective and can be damaging because even unpopular and offensive messages can educate and inform.
Let the Nazis, Communists, fascists, anarchists, or whoever march and express their views. Censorship, which delivers the opposite effect, has no place in a free society. As former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis stated in Whitney v. California, “If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”
Our world should never be maligned for having too much information, and no one should be silenced for sharing their views, except in extreme cases. TMI will continue to defend free speech for all, including the voices of angels and demons among us. We are committed to safeguarding the media’s right to report on events of interest and to select content freely. In this sense, The Media Institute wholeheartedly supports TMI and proudly adopts the moniker.
Michael O’Rielly is President of The Media Institute. He served as a Commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission from 2013 through 2020.