Comments on: Is Internet access a fundamental human right?

By: Krioni

Krioni — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 04:15:11 +0000

Several people have made a VERY important distinction: The thing that should be a right is to have no government interference with one’s access to the Internet.
Similarly, in the USA, the First Amendment to our Constitution provides “freedom of the press” (literally, the right to create and distribute speech in printed form using a printing press). It does not create a right to be provided with a newspaper subscription, or even government-subsidized printing presses. Get it?

So, the correct way to understand a “right to Internet access” should be that it is something the government cannot take away from citizens.

With that definition, it should be obvious to freedom-loving people everywhere that such a right is clear. In fact, one could argue that U.S. law already supports such a right, since the First Amendment freedom of speech (and the press) has been understood to cover speech in many different forms.

By: Hamid

Hamid — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 11:52:00 +0000

In my part of the world we tell young ones that access is a privilege never a right as it relates to how one react or behaves when they are online

By: umbrarchist

umbrarchist — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 01:30:23 +0000

Why don’t we have a RIGHT TO KNOWLEDGE and have every country create a National Recommended Reading List. The Internet and a library are similar in that the important information may be there but most of it is crap or watered down. If the RIGHT books were just listed more then 90% of them could be eliminated. A really great book list would be worth more than the Internet.

I know there are lots of book lists on the net. I’ve seen one with over 3,000 books, alphabetical by author. No mention of subject.

How about: The Tyranny of Words by Stuart Chase
It is about linguistics and thought and lots of people spewing out BS. Computers and the Internet enable more BS production and distribution.

By: Michael

Michael — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 21:55:49 +0000

Some are arguing that people don’t need it to survive. Well, I beg to differ. Perhaps in America it’s not vital to everyone’s survival, but the internet saves lives in Mexico and the Middle East. In Mexico, for example, the drug cartels have forced the media to keep silent about their actions. Several reporters have died already because they reported “too much” information. Citizens depend on the media to tell them what’s happening, but that invaluable information is blocked by drug cartels.

Consequently, they resort to using internet applications such as Twiiter to inform friends and family about shootings and deaths. The internet is a powerful medium that informs the public and protects people’s civil rights and liberties.

China’s government is another example of oppression; they control the dissemmination of information everywhere, on the internet, the news, advertisements, movies, etc. The internet connects people, offers awareness, and inspires change.

I’ve traveled much of the world, and I can vouch that the internet should be considered both a human and civil right.

By: SlingTrebuchet

SlingTrebuchet — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 16:39:24 +0000

Human rights have been the same since the first humans. Even Creationists would say that is a very long time. Something that was invented 5 seconds ago (relatively) is not a human right. The Net is simply a means.

By: Richard Bennett

Richard Bennett — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 23:10:42 +0000

I should add that UN “Special Rapporteurs” are unpaid volunteers.

By: Chris Rossini

Chris Rossini — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 14:49:08 +0000

Since “the Internet” is a product of human labor, access to it cannot be a “right.”

Person A cannot have the “right” to Person B’s labor (or the product of his/her labor). Such a situation turns Person B into a type of serf.

After all, in years passed, slaveowners claimed the right to all of the labor of their slaves. Was this a natural part of nature, or artificial? We all know the answer.

We can never have a *natural* right to another person’s labor or production. Since “the Internet” is not superabundant for all (like oxygen), but a product of human labor, other humans cannot naturally have a “right” to procuring it for themselves. The only right they have is to *voluntary* make a transaction with the provider(s).

By: Ross Stapleton-Gray

Ross Stapleton-Gray — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 04:52:41 +0000

If access to clean drinking water is a fundamental human right, then we as humans are failing many, many millions of people.

By: Mathew Ingram

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 04:14:59 +0000

Thanks, Richard — and I agree that one of the reasons why technologists and tech companies might want to avoid the issue is because they are concerned about government control and regulation. Appreciate the comment.

By: Richard Bennett

Richard Bennett — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 03:18:31 +0000

The United Nations has not declared Internet access a human right, representations by Kravets not withstanding. One “special rapporteur” offered that opinion to the UN, but he was hired to provide them with provocative opinions. There hasn’t been a motion or a vote by the actual body of the UN to make such an assertion.

Technology companies are not going to back the “human rights” meme because it will inevitably subject them and the Internet economy as a whole to more regulation and scrutiny. See my blog post at High Tech Forum, http://www.hightechforum.org/why-did-vint-cerf-say-that/

The most interesting part – and the most dangerous one – in Cerf’s essay is his exhortation for technologists to weigh in on tech policy issues from a political perspective rather than a technical one. That’s a recipe for disaster.