top | item 4209852

(no title)

mthreat | 13 years ago

As someone who was once banned from the Internet by the US gov't[1], I actually agree with you. People throw around terms like "human right" without knowing what it means. If access to the Internet is a human right, that means every human in the world should be able to demand access to the Internet?

I think the Internet absolutely should receive First Amendment protection in the US (and the US Supreme Court agrees), but calling it a human right doesn't seem to agree with the definition[2]. I'd love to hear arguments for the other side.

Note that this doesn't mean I think governments should be able to actively deny individuals access to the Internet, but a Constitutional right is not the same as a human right.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Lamprecht

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights

discuss

order

barrkel|13 years ago

"If access to the Internet is a human right, that means every human in the world should be able to demand access to the Internet?"

Does freedom of speech mean everyone should be able to demand access to a printing press?

smsm42|13 years ago

Well, consider this for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights#Water

Specifically: This marks a departure from the conclusions of the 2nd World Water Forum in The Hague in 2000, which stated that water was a commodity to be bought and sold, not a right.[102] There are calls from many NGOs and politicians to enshrine access to water as a binding human right, and not as a commodity.

It seems to imply pretty clearly that access to water as a human right contradicts requirement for payment. The same argument is frequently heard when the healthcare is discussed. So I would say implying that it means not only ability to access but actually ability to access for all, regardless of means - is not out of the question. At least it does not contradict how many other "rights" are interpreted.

saraid216|13 years ago

> Does freedom of speech mean everyone should be able to demand access to a printing press?

Nah, that's freedom of the press. :P

(Aaand thinking about it, half the people who see this comment won't realize this, so:

That was a joke.)

saraid216|13 years ago

> If access to the Internet is a human right, that means every human in the world should be able to demand access to the Internet?

You seem to be asking this rhetorically, but I don't see what your objection to people being allowed to demand access to the Internet is. Could you actually spell it out?

SoftwareMaven|13 years ago

What if I can't pay for it? Do I have the right to force somebody else to pay for it? Am I going to be forced to pay for the Internet of somebody else? Why is the Internet a human right but electricity, which is kind of critical to running the Internet, is not?

The Internet just seems really specific (see the list of others at http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/).

sigzero|13 years ago

Because it isn't a "right" that is why. Once you go down that road it means that those that have have to pay for those that have not. No thank you.

mthreat|13 years ago

Another point - people in prison still deserve "human rights", even though they've lost their right to freedom. This implies that even freedom isn't a human right. Of course, you could argue that this leads to a contradiction about taking away one's freedom, but that's another discussion.

Riesling|13 years ago

I studied law in germany for a couple of semesters and I learned that human rights are never absolute. They are more like bubbles. Basically your right ends where it collides with someones else right or to paraphrase it "one man's freedom is another man's limitation".

The purpose of the law is to make sure, that those bubbles are about equally sized for everyone.

zcid|13 years ago

Via the social contract, by infringing on the rights of another, one volunteers to temporarily suspend the right to freedom. A right cannot be taken away or lost as they are inherent to the human condition.

saraid216|13 years ago

First, a rights violation does not indicate the non-existence of a right.

Second, "freedom" is not a right and never has been. It is not a useful term on its own. You can be free to do something, or free from something, but you can't just be generically free.