Is internet access a human right?

So, you are saying that society would not fall apart if our technological society's technology failed? We'd be dead, end of story.

As for the actual discussion...I have no Idea.

If Internet Access Isn't a human right, can the government void our rights of free speech on the internet? or any other right you could correlate with what we partake in on the web?

This is quite puzzling.

In the first place, rights are limitations and freedoms made by ourselves to keep some kind of order. That said, to have internet, you pay, so yea. Unless it was free, then whoever is giving it to you for free has the right to take it away.

Some men just want to watch the world burn.

And do you mean "we'd be dead" as in, everything would go to hell, or "we'd be dead" literally?

Because, go back ten years, and we were doing just fine with that level of technology, which, admittedly, was shit compared to what we've got today.

[color=green]I dread the fact that everything is flammable.

My Point-of-view seems to conflict with yours, however.

Weren't we still a technolochnological civilization 10 years ago? The world would have ended 10 years ago if technology failed as well.

I feel this is rather off-topic considering the subject matter we are supposed to be discussing. I'd love to continue this conversation elsewhere, PM possibly?

Good point but no. I would call those "basic needs" not "rights". I was defining "rights" as speech and thought.

Expression of speech over the internet is a right, yes, as an extension of freedom of speech. The access itself isn't, however, as that's something a company provides for people.

Companies do provide internet access, but you don't need to go through such a company to be able to use the internet. Libraries offer free internet on their computers, and there are a ton of spots where you can get free wi-fi.

If the ability to get online isn't considered a right that all people should have, then what would keep a library or a store with wi-fi from keeping certain kinds of people from using these services that are otherwise available to other groups?

I do not think internet access constitutes a "human right".

First off, it's not free. There are internet service providing companies (mostly telecoms) that lets people subscribe to internet access through them, for a reasonable fee. Anyone can get it, but they have to pay for it. You can connect, but unless you are a subscriber or somebody authorized to connect freely, you can't have internet access.

There are establishments that offer free internet access, like the nearest Starbucks, or McDonald's, or the nearest consumer business establishment near you that have a "Free Wi-Fi" outside their doors. They offer it for free to all, but if you're astute enough you know somebody else is paying for the "free" internet access. Just to attract customers to stay and possibly buy a product or two, that's why they offer internet access for free. And to think it's not always a guarantee people go to malls and buy anything.

I've worked part-time in the past at a restaurant that offer Wi-Fi, and I know the business owner is paying for that wi-fi access monthly, and it's a costly "business plan" internet package plan from a telecom company. You think they get back that cost from the customers other than "passing the buck" and increasing the prices a wee bit to help pay for it? Think again. How about leechers? There's no guarantee they get that "operating cost" back, they just write it off as a liability in the sheets and move on. It's a business expense, then. It's worse if it's on a government establishment, like parks or libraries. The government doesn't provide costly wi-fi access out of thin air - it's from taxes. You're still paying for it, or somebody else does for you.

So where's the right there if either you're paying for access, or somebody else's paying for your access?

Also, do you own any electronic gadget that allows you to access the internet? iPads, iPhones, laptops, cellphones, desktop PCs, you name it. You NEED one to access the 'net. I don't see anybody accessing the internet without such gadgets. You have the right to internet access but you don't have anything to use to access such right? Cool. That's one of the main reasons against this one becoming a right - it's too dependent on technology. Your government isn't going to provide you with the gadgets to "allow you to freely exercise your right" - you go buy one yourself. Or in the case of desktop PCs, go to an internet cafe and pay for use.

You need ISPs, you need an internet-capable electronic gadget, and either you pay for it or others pay for you (both either by direct money or taxes)... no, "internet access" by these terms isn't even close to being a human right.

If you see it as an extention of freedom of information, then it is indeed a human right. I don't really think it is a fundamental human right, it's notas freedom of speech (altough it may be an extension of it), you're born legally equal to other people, and you're born free of slavery, but I don't think you'll care if you can't connect to internet(come on you can get used to not fapping in fakku if that's what you use your internet for), as much as you'll care if someone enslaves you.

This indeed is a great thread, hopeto see more points of view on the matter.

Freedom of speech is a human right, but you need to buy things to be able to take advantage of it. Newspapers cost money; somebody has to pay to make them, and you often have to pay to read them. Putting a video of your views on YouTube demands a computer, camera, and internet access. Even writing a letter to a political figure costs money, in the form of paper, ink, stamps, etc.

Everything costs money. Should we use the fact that we have to pay for stuff as the basis for what is and is not our right? I have a right to use condoms to help prevent pregnancy, but I have to pay for the condoms. Because I have to get condoms from a source outside myself, do I not have a right to use them (or other forms of protection concerning reproduction)? I have a right to education, but I have to pay for supplies that are necessary for that education, even public education at the grade-school level. I have a right to eat food, but I have to pay for it. Even if I grow my own, I have to pay for seeds, as well as the land on which the food is grown.

"Do I have to pay for it?" or "Does someone else have to provide it to me" are not fair prerequisites to determining whether someone should or should not be an inalienable human right.

I've read some more about this "right", and I also found it is already redundant, being covered by one existing right already.



Note the bolded terms above "to benefit from scientific progress" and "to share in scientific advancement and its benefits". Internet is a scientific progress under information technology. We are all benefiting from it. So why the hell should we make "internet access" so fucking special? Should all major scientific progresses from this century be given their own special right as well?

If iPhones become the standard cellphone of the majority, would the "right to own an iPhone" become a right as well?

Hell, Microsoft Windows, as of October 2009, had approximately 90% of the market share of the client OS - should there be a "right to Windows"?

Almost all of us use some form of communication - cellphones, telephones, and God knows if someone's still on pagers - and we use them very extensively. So why don't we have the "right to telecommunication" as well?

We have already quite a good set of human rights - and some of us are just busy bloating some of it up. We can just simply list "internet" as a whole subcategory under the common "right to science and culture", that's it. No need to put it on some stupid special pedestal and trumpet it.

I don't think everybody should be entitled to free internet.
But I do think internet access shouldn't be denied because of race, religion etc. if you pay for it, ofcourse.

Exactly. If the internet is a "right" there should be shit tons of free WiFi spots in Africa right? Better yet, the homeless people in wealthy parts North/South America, Europe, and Asia should be demanding free WiFi.

The internet is a given thing. Somebody's gotta pay for it, and if you're not, it's probably not your right to browse it freely.

Internet access is not a necessity or a natural right; that's why we have to PAY for it. It is, however, a form of media, so it shouldn't be sealed off to people who are willing to shell out the money to get it.

That's what right means. That you have the right to gain access and not be denied that right to gain access to it.

It doesn't mean "ALL OF IT IS FREE NOW!"

I didn't think so many people would be legitimately confuse the idea of having acess to the internet, and the access to free internet. Honestly, it's a little depressing.

To clarify, the issue is about whether or not it is a basic right to be able to access the internet, if you have the means to do so.

That being said, it's already a right for people to be able to access the internet. Firstly, what is the goal of the middle eastern nations when they shut down internet? It's obviously so that they can oppress the freedom of speech and press, so that the people can't post negative opinions of the government,and spread news about the oppression going on.

Going on the internet and posting something is not any different from writing a newspaper article.

Secondly, access of the internet also falls under the "pursuit of happiness."
the pursuit of happiness was defined in 1884 by the Supreme Court in Butchers' Co. v. Crescent City Co as "the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give to them their highest enjoyment."

That is, that people in America have the right to do whatever they want, as long as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. (This is also called the Harm Principle, if anyone's into philosophy.)

Many other things are covered under "the pursuit of happiness," which is why we have rights to many other things in our lives, though they are not specifically named in the bill of right. "The pursuit of happiness" is the reason we are allowed to wear whatever kind of clothes we want, go to disneyland whenever we want, and be friends with whoever we want, even though "the right to go to disneyland" or the "right to be friends with that asshole Kevin" is not listed anywhere.

Also, if you look on the Universal Declaration of Human rights from the UN, you'll notice something similar in Article 27, as mentioned by someone else above. So yeah.

To answer the question, yes internet access is considered a human right.

In my opinion, the internet is a privilege, not an essential human right. Sure it can help fulfill the pursuit of happiness, and can also help with the forms of free speech and freedom of the press. But do we really need the internet to live? No we don't. It is a luxury given to us by this wonderful age of technology we are in. And you can still get your fill of free speech and free press, by watching tv, going to rallies, or even reading the newspaper. And you can always find something else to "get" you happy. I read, and play video games. Do I need the internet, no. I just like to use it for its convenience.

Actually, some people do in fact need the internet to live as it provides their source of income in either a direct way or indirect way.

And it doesn't matter if there are other way to get happy. That's not the point, you don't have to use the internet if you do not want to, but you should not be denied access to it if you do.