Is internet access a human right?

CNN

With the birth of the Arab spring, this little question has started circulating amongst politicians and other politically aware people. Most recently the United Nations has declared that



Now, the purpose of this thread is to discuss whether in fact internet access constitutes a human right.

According to Amnesty International "Human rights" are

Rights break down into two sub-categories which are "Natural" or "Inalienable" rights. These are rights are not granted by some authority and simply exist. On the other hand we have "legal" rights which are rights granted to us by an establishment, organization, etc.

Now that I've framed the discussion.

I do not believe internet access to be a human right. At least, of the natural/inalienable variety. I don't consider "legal" rights to be anything more than a glorified privilege since for a right to have any meaning it must have some level of staying power. The legal variety can simply be removed if it becomes a problem to that particular organization that granted it. For example, a democratic Government with the "Freedom of Religion" legal right becomes theocratic. That Government can amend whatever document entitled it's citizens with the "Freedom of Religion" right and force them to change their religion or face persecution.

To add to this, I believe in property rights, especially self ownership. I believe a person is entitled to 100% of the fruits of their labor. That means, whatever you build or create,etc. Whatever you have created is yours free and clear and it is a violation of your rights for someone to take it or any amount of it from you without your permission.

So how does this play into internet? First, let me ask you this question



The answer is you can't, not without throwing out property rights as a whole. Other people and organizations own the networks that make up the internet. In other words, the internet is a collection of interconnected properties.

To compare the internet to something universal like free speech. Free speech is a human right that represents a natural capability to speak one's mind. The internet is a tool-- we don't have human rights to tools. I do not have a right to pen and paper but, I do have a right to speak my mind. That is what the internet is, our pen and paper.

What are you thoughts?

Internet is as much of a right as your driver's license or to ask burger king to have it your way. No one was a god given right to free internet, but they have the right to be able to go on if they want. So should there be access to the net.. yes, free access, sure why the hell not.. Fucking Sweden has it.. i have it( it's included in my rent for the complex cost), but it not a right.. it's a privilege or an opportunity.

Not insofar that the government has to provide free internet access to every household. Libraries have provided free internet for years now. I don't think that was the thrust or intention of the document at all. I think it was intended more towards groups of people being denied the internet by some method of discrimination. I'd like to see them clarify that particular block of text for sure.

I do believe this topic should be put into words as an amendment however. Censorship and ownership of content addressed how the U.N. did it. I rather like the wording of that document for the most part.

It is here (and in a few other places).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Internet_access

Something I wish to address. The link I provided is the U.N.'s response to the disconnection of internet in countries as part of a Government crackdown on dissidents. I personally, abhor any type of censorship and such a move by my own government would result me toasting the politicians...with Molotov Coktails.

The article brought up the question of whether or not the internet is a basic right. I wish to hear more opinions of the subject to maybe convince me that it could indeed be a right in the digital era. Much like the newspaper was in the 1800's.

Side note: I am a little disappointed in how poorly this thread did.

I have a unique situation but, it makes me go with that having internet access is indeed a human right. You see, I've grown up helping my parents all the time on phone calls.

Their english isn't that good so cuz of that, they have trouble typing stuff out on tty. Ah the memories of being dragged onto the tty and being made to help them call. xD

I enjoy the freedom I now have because of videophones that use internet they don't rely on me anymore for help most of times now. That's a huge improvement, u see, in the past I had to drop whatever I was doing and help them with calls. Something I can't do when I'm on other end of USA in university..

So yes, its a basic human right to me. Take that away, and alot of people will suddenly have difficulties just trying to call. I'm going to defend having internet is a human right now. Its no longer an option anymore. TTY is for deaf people who actually like reading.

Having internet has improved my quality of life, this is undeniable fact. I remember how horrible it was when dial up phone lines was only option.

Look, they actually can make alot of calls on their own now, and a reliable way to actually contact 911 and get emergency services at right place at right time. Before, it wasn't possible for my parents. They're old now.

I think you sum it up pretty nicely FPOD.

If someone has to provide it to you then it is not a right.

What if it's something taken away from you?

Let's say you live in a country where freedom of speech is very limited. In order to keep people hushed up they "unplug" the internet in their country.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the internet is something everyone should get for free to access whenever they want, but it should be available for those seeking it.

I could sort of see why it could be seen as a human right every thing now a days expects you to have internet if there isn't a right to have it it should be wrong to be expected to have it.

Some bills will cost extra to be sent as a letter and instantly be sent as a e-bill instead. When before there was no extra charge for the letter it really shouldn't cost extra.

I'm on job seekers allowance and I'm expected to have internet access if I didn't I couldn't do what is asked of me and going to a public library wouldn't suffice because they ask me to do so much that the amount of time I could get at a library is limited. I also remember at school I suffered in a lot of things because they expected me to have a computer and internet at home to do my home work which I didn't at the time and not having much experience with the internet when I went on it it took longer to get stuff done because I had no idea what I was doing.

I mean, what constitutes "inalienable/natural" rights is just as arbitrary as "legal" rights. Philosophers like John Locke and Adam Smith tried to prove it using some Theology (Nobody can trace their lineage to Adam. God intended us to improve the world with labor), but it's simply taken as a granted now by secularists.

You need to start with a few assumptions/axioms, and then build your laws around that. That's how I see it. Inalienable/natural rights are the foundations, upon which legal rights are built on.

But I think there's also one category of law. One that's built for the "good of the society", and I don't mean to use the quotations to make it sound sarcastic or anything. A lot of people forget that liberalism almost died with the Great Depression, with fascism and socialism emerging out of the failure of free market and democracy. FDR, Keynes, and all the leaders during and after WWII were liberal conservatives. While they wanted to have liberal institutions like the free market, they knew that it was fragile. You can't have huge inequality, insecurity (no health care, insurance, etc) and an unstable economy. So we had decades of centrist polticians in Western Society, who tried to push for reforms that better society as a whole.

You also have the concept of externalities, and the necessity for the government to step in, when the best result for society can't be obtained with the free market.

It should be there, but not handed out.

If you wish whether or not something is a right or not, then you have to ask a few questions.

Is it something needed to live?

Is it something needed to earn a living?

Is it something needed to be able to perform in society?

Now while the Internet does not fall under the first question, it does arguable fall under the second and third question for a lot of developed country.

It is becomming increasingly difficult to make a proper living either with indirect or direct internet access. Many companies would find it rather hard to thrive at all and stay open if they loss their internet access. It also is a key to most of the communication between businesses nowadays. That means in an indirect way it influences the majority of everyone's jobs.

And it can be a very direct for people whose living consists of something related to the internet.

And considering how much the internet has become intergrated into certain developed societies, just trying to reasonably interact in society become increasingly difficult without internet access.

As time goes by and it becomes more intergrated you will see this become truer. It might not be at the level where it should be a basic human right, but it will easily reach those levels in even as little as a decade.

I feel for me the internet is some thing needed to live with out it I would of been kicked of JSA and would of went homeless eventually. The reason I feel I have a right to have internet is it seems almost every thing expects me to have it if it wasn't expected of me then I would say no.

Somewhat of the point, yeah. If something starts to become necessary for people to function, any number of people, then people have the right to have access to that.

It's that sort of dilemna that internet is going to create as we get more intergrated, more reliant upon it.

Honestly, we're still in the beginning stages of the internet. We are just now having a generation that has grown up with it commonplace in most of their lives with many having to rely upon it for something.

Consider the fact that to go through many colleges now, you need access to the internet not just for one or two classes, but almost the majority of them now.

This is in a society where it's becoming harder to even get an acceptable living without some sort of degree.

And again, this is only the beginning of things. It might not be a full need now, a full right now. But it will be.

If it was I would not be paying an internet bill.

Being lazy to read more than the first 5 post, sorry the rest of you guys,
I believe that in this age and era, which has so much reliance on technology that it becomes intolerable for some people. Internet access should have as much importance to the press in TV and in the newspaper, and I think it has more than those two because it also provides communication between people. The right to phones and cellphones have yet to be regulated. So the internet provides access to the same thing as other rights that we have. I do believe however that a government should have at least some right to restrict access for it's adolescences that is, under 18.

So food and water doesn't count as human rights to you?

Take this with a grain of salt and make a simple answer out of it:

"Internet is a privilege not a right"

Sums up half the time to argue about it :-)

I don't think that there should be anything that a human has invented as a "human right." Now don't get me wrong, I understand that, yeah, there are certain things that humans cannot live without, but technology isn't one of them. We may be a technological society, but we coped for tens of thousands of years before hand without anything of the like.

I didn't write that out too well; No. Human rights are things we cannot live without, the internet is not one of them.

I think that the right to internet access is a human right. Not internet access itself, but the ability to connect. If you can, you know, afford it, and how much it costs should be a government/business thing.

Otherwise, people could say, "You can't have internet access because you're [insert anything]." I think unless we say that every human has the right to get online, then some people may try to prevent certain groups from using the internet. It's not impossible to imagine a pseudo-religion saying that women shouldn't be allowed on the internet because it will take them away from "womanly duties." Shit, in America alone, we used to force people to use different water fountains, something as simple as that. If the internet existed in the 50s, blacks probably wouldn't be allowed to use it. That would have been a basic right that they fought for.

It would be beneficial to say that every person can go online if he/she chooses to and has the capacity for it. As for it not being a right because you have to get it from someone else, then that immediately takes away my right to water, electricity, all forms of news coverage, etc. because I have to get all those things from other people, from businesses that profit from me getting them. (I'm not sure if that lines up with what you were saying, so if it doesn't, feel free to ignore it.)