Internet Access IS A Human Right

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
There is another editorial posted today on the subject of "internet access being a human right." Those of you with internet access can click the link above and read the article. Those of you that don't have internet access can't read this so it probably doesn't matter anyway. :D

There’s no need to try to redefine what “human rights” are. According to Wikipedia, human rights are “commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being.” This fits in well today just as it fit when the term was introduced in the 18th century.
Click to expand...
 
Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness...and the internet :rolleyes:
 
The article seems to imply that internet access isn't a human right, but that labeling it as a right in order to spread the internet to more people is a good course of action. Which personally sparks the old adage of "the end justifying the means".

If the United Nations declaring that internet access should be a human right is the way to make it a reality, then we shouldn’t be tinkering with the semantics of the statement. We should be striving to make it a reality.
Click to expand...
 
You have no rights, citizen. Now pick up that can...
Pick_up_that_can.jpg


I don't think it should be considered a human right by any means. There is a worry that we may lose some of what we know know as the internet and we do need to fight losing this vital tool. Sometimes desperate times require desperate measures. Maybe in 10 years I will want to consider it a Right...who knows...
 
kirbyrj said:
Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness...and the internet :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I think Internet falls within "liberty". Our freedom of speech and freedom of information guarantees this.

Not to confuse freedom of government with privilege to use a site as long as you follow company guidelines - such as how some forum posters declares his freedom of speech on this forum.
 
You have the right to drive your automobile on the highway, if you follow the rules.

That said, you need an automobile, which is not a right .

So.......you may have some sort of "entitlement" to the internet, but what about the piece of equipment to access it? or maybe a cellular phone? what about the electricity to power said device?
Well, you have to house the access and devices............so you must have a house.

Where is the financing going to come from? Your taxes or mine?:eek:
 
Azhar said:
I think Internet falls within "liberty". Our freedom of speech and freedom of information guarantees this.

Not to confuse freedom of government with privilege to use a site as long as you follow company guidelines - such as how some forum posters declares his freedom of speech on this forum.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Don't get me wrong, I love the internet as much as the next person, but there is no way it would fall under liberty. As an outworking of freedom of speech? Come on. That's a stretch at best.

The top 3 largest sources of internet traffic are Netflix/Youtube (and other real streaming entertainment), P2P filesharing, and web-browsing, accounting for 85% of the internet traffic. All of which are things you can live without.
 
kirbyrj said:
I disagree. Don't get me wrong, I love the internet as much as the next person, but there is no way it would fall under liberty. As an outworking of freedom of speech? Come on. That's a stretch at best.

The top 3 largest sources of internet traffic are Netflix/Youtube (and other real streaming entertainment), P2P filesharing, and web-browsing, accounting for 85% of the internet traffic. All of which are things you can live without.
Click to expand...

Eh, I'm in IT for a project management firm. I live and breathe the internet. Without the internet I'll not be making my living such as I am now. Not exactly something I'd like to live without.
 
magoo said:
You have the right to drive your automobile on the highway, if you follow the rules.

That said, you need an automobile, which is not a right .

So.......you may have some sort of "entitlement" to the internet, but what about the piece of equipment to access it? or maybe a cellular phone? what about the electricity to power said device?
Well, you have to house the access and devices............so you must have a house.

Where is the financing going to come from? Your taxes or mine?:eek:
Click to expand...
Welcome to the new US(ocialist)A, leave your privacy at the door. :(
 
Human right more a global concept of minimum human treatment than anything else. I have no problems including accessibility to the internet as a human right as human rights is more a philosophy than an actual practice.

But defining human rights is far to deep of a concept to manage on a forum.
 
magoo said:
You have the right to drive your automobile on the highway, if you follow the rules.

That said, you need an automobile, which is not a right .

So.......you may have some sort of "entitlement" to the internet, but what about the piece of equipment to access it? or maybe a cellular phone? what about the electricity to power said device?
Well, you have to house the access and devices............so you must have a house.

Where is the financing going to come from? Your taxes or mine?:eek:
Click to expand...

No, you have the privilege at the behest of the state to drive your vehicle. You have the right to own a vehicle as it is property, but you don't have an innate right to drive it, much less without a drivers license which is state property to identify you.
 
stevedave said:
Human right more a global concept of minimum human treatment than anything else. I have no problems including accessibility to the internet as a human right as human rights is more a philosophy than an actual practice.

But defining human rights is far to deep of a concept to manage on a forum.
Click to expand...

You can live without the internet. You can live without almost everything else in the world as well. None of them are 'rights' that are owed to you. And where does that right come from?
 
The word 'rights' is so overused and misunderstood that I'm amazed people don't just stop, back up for a second and take a look at a case by case basis on exactly what a right vs. what a privilege vs. basic utilities are? Internet access is not and should not be a 'right'. You can live without it and before we ever had it, living life was not an issue. Is it a tool? Yes. Is it indispensable for human function. No.
 
Let's hope most people here know the difference between a privilege and a right.
 
Oh and yes, driving a vehicle on a highway is not a right but a privilege.
 
Internet acces is NOT a human right. Calling it a human right is just a means of making other people pay for it.

Rights do not put a financial obligation on others because that would be a vilolation of others rights. As far as rights are concerned, a persons only obligation is to not violate some one elses rights.

You have the right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happyness. This means that I shouldn't deprive you of life, or imprision you (at least without cause). That does not mean I need to pay for your microphone, or give you stuff to make you happy.
 
the label "human rights" is merely an vehicle used to give people something they have not earned. No one needs the internet, if we needed the internet we would have had an awfully tough time making it to the 1990s. It would be nice if everyone had access to the internet, enough to eat, was treated equally, if everyone could get health care. But these are Human ideas. We only have the appearance of rights due to the massive co-operation of people in society due to the understanding that when we work together things are better for everyone. Look at the natural world and observe the rights that wild animals have. Those are the exact same rights that you or I have, anything else is an illusion.
 
nutzo said:
Internet acces is NOT a human right. Calling it a human right is just a means of making other people pay for it.

Rights do not put a financial obligation on others because that would be a vilolation of others rights. As far as rights are concerned, a persons only obligation is to not violate some one elses rights.

You have the right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happyness. This means that I shouldn't deprive you of life, or imprision you (at least without cause). That does not mean I need to pay for your microphone, or give you stuff to make you happy.
Click to expand...

Phone service isn't a right either, but it was seen as something that everyone should have access to. Now internet access is in the same situation.
 
I'm not sure if the author meant that Internet access should be provided to everyone free of charge. Medicine is provided for a fee (at least in the US), but most of us would agree that access to medicine is a human right. On the other hand, a K-12 education is also a human right, but we do provide it for free. I think the author really means it's a "human right" as a classification of sorts, not that it needs to be given away or anything else. Maybe as a "human right" we could work to make it available to a certain specification (1 Mbps for example) in all parts of the country. But I certainly would like to see Internet access provided by public municipalities in order to make it more affordable and effective, though that's another story for another time.

kirbyrj said:
I disagree. Don't get me wrong, I love the internet as much as the next person, but there is no way it would fall under liberty. As an outworking of freedom of speech? Come on. That's a stretch at best.

The top 3 largest sources of internet traffic are Netflix/Youtube (and other real streaming entertainment), P2P filesharing, and web-browsing, accounting for 85% of the internet traffic. All of which are things you can live without.
Click to expand...

Just because most people watch videos about an elephant that can paint does not mean that we should characterize the whole Internet as such. The coordination that the rebels in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya etc. received due to the Internet may be a minority of the service provided by the Internet, but it's no less important. As an analogy, Christianity may be the overwhelmingly dominant religion in the US but that doesn't make the other religions any less relevant.
 
Methadras said:
No, you have the privilege at the behest of the state to drive your vehicle. You have the right to own a vehicle as it is property, but you don't have an innate right to drive it, much less without a drivers license which is state property to identify you.
Click to expand...

You'll notice I said: if you follow the rules. obtaining a driver's license would be one of those rules....not to mention the rules of the road.
Now, if you pay taxes, your money is used to build and maintain the roadways, again if you follow the rules you have a right to use those venues sometimes at a cost(toll) sometimes for "free".

The is no privilege in using a public roadway, it is a right given by your contributions to the state in the form of taxes.......and you also additionally pay a user fee when you buy gasoline, tires, motor oil and lisence plates/registration for said vehicle.
 
I really don't want to debate this online as it is difficult. But "human rights" is a philosophy meaning it is dynamic and change change based on its philosophers similarly to how what is moral, just, and right all change through out time and audience.

Human rights has never been about what people 'need' to survive

a good example is that Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness is an American Human right that non Americans outside of america don't have.

our understanding and defining human rights will always be subject to change.

also a right doesn't mean you have to Give something to anyone but more so that someone doesn't prevent or take away something. So the right to Internet wouldn't have to mean free internet to all but could simply mean the preventing of blocked internet / censored internet similar to free trade.

along with this global ideology of human rights you have each individuals idea of human right and I know my own personal human rights go far and beyond Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness.
 
Soggy said:
the label "human rights" is merely an vehicle used to give people something they have not earned. No one needs the internet, if we needed the internet we would have had an awfully tough time making it to the 1990s. It would be nice if everyone had access to the internet, enough to eat, was treated equally, if everyone could get health care. But these are Human ideas. We only have the appearance of rights due to the massive co-operation of people in society due to the understanding that when we work together things are better for everyone. Look at the natural world and observe the rights that wild animals have. Those are the exact same rights that you or I have, anything else is an illusion.
Click to expand...

Then I'll take the rights that a lion has and start killing and eating people or a bird and start shitting on people cars.
 
stevedave said:
Human right more a global concept of minimum human treatment than anything else. I have no problems including accessibility to the internet as a human right as human rights is more a philosophy than an actual practice.

But defining human rights is far to deep of a concept to manage on a forum.
Click to expand...

Wow, this might be the best and most level-headed post I've ever read on [H].
 
Methadras said:
The word 'rights' is so overused and misunderstood that I'm amazed people don't just stop, back up for a second and take a look at a case by case basis on exactly what a right vs. what a privilege vs. basic utilities are? Internet access is not and should not be a 'right'. You can live without it and before we ever had it, living life was not an issue. Is it a tool? Yes. Is it indispensable for human function. No.
Click to expand...
By this set of criteria, essentially nothing is a right besides what's required to sustain life. And even then, that's an arbitrary distinction as to what a right is.

The point stevedave has skirted around is that every right is an arbitrary, social distinction. There is no such thing as an innate right. It's one set by societal norms and understandings, and is the same thing as a basic utility in a democratic, modern society. Driving might arguably be a privilege, but access to the internet is quickly a modern requirement for simply holding a job, having a bank account, etc.
 
magoo said:
You'll notice I said: if you follow the rules. obtaining a driver's license would be one of those rules....not to mention the rules of the road.
Now, if you pay taxes, your money is used to build and maintain the roadways, again if you follow the rules you have a right to use those venues sometimes at a cost(toll) sometimes for "free".

The is no privilege in using a public roadway, it is a right given by your contributions to the state in the form of taxes.......and you also additionally pay a user fee when you buy gasoline, tires, motor oil and lisence plates/registration for said vehicle.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, can you tell me where in law the right to use a public roadway is given?
 
nutzo said:
Internet acces is NOT a human right. Calling it a human right is just a means of making other people pay for it.

Rights do not put a financial obligation on others because that would be a vilolation of others rights. As far as rights are concerned, a persons only obligation is to not violate some one elses rights.

You have the right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happyness. This means that I shouldn't deprive you of life, or imprision you (at least without cause). That does not mean I need to pay for your microphone, or give you stuff to make you happy.
Click to expand...

If a guy named nutzo can figure this out, what's wrong with the rest of you?
 
It seems on the left we have bleeding hearts with entitlement issues and on the right we have warmongering bible beaters...

I just hope that Ron Paul's performance improves so that we can get away from both.

I understand charity when speaking of food, water, and to some extent even shelter, but otherwise you are entitled to your life and the pursuit of happiness, not the right to rob your neighbor to get luxuries that make you happy. You're supposed to be motivated to work for those.
 
The internet is not a god-given right. Maybe we should think about drinking clean water and breathing fresh air.

Tell anyone in a 3rd world country about the Internet. They probably don't care. They just need to get by on food and shelter, not surf YouTube or see their neighboring tribe's Facebook posts.
 
Cobalt2112 said:
The internet is not a god-given right. Maybe we should think about drinking clean water and breathing fresh air.

Tell anyone in a 3rd world country about the Internet. They probably don't care. They just need to get by on food and shelter, not surf YouTube or see their neighboring tribe's Facebook posts.
Click to expand...
Sorry to burst your bubble, but there are no god-given rights. I'll let you figure out the reason why. ;)

Second, the internet is prevalent throughout the third world, as is satellite TV. If you're talking about an agrarian society, then sure, but every major city in Africa and the Middle East has many of these technologies.

In the US, it's near impossible to get job without an email address or a telephone number. That's why they've becomes rights.

A human right doesn't need to be individually distributed, it just needs to be accessible. In most cities in the US, that means things like libraries (with internet access) and public transportation.
 
Azhar said:
I think Internet falls within "liberty". Our freedom of speech and freedom of information guarantees this.

Not to confuse freedom of government with privilege to use a site as long as you follow company guidelines - such as how some forum posters declares his freedom of speech on this forum.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. Do you think you also have the right to have your opinions posted in a newspaper, broadcasted on tv etc...?
 
If it's not a human right, then what human has the right to decide who controls it?
Using the internet as a means to exercise your right to Free Speech means that the internet itself may never be crippled to the point that it prevents you from exercising your Free Speech rights.
 
Steve said:
There is another editorial posted today on the subject of "internet access being a human right." Those of you with internet access can click the link above and read the article. Those of you that don't have internet access can't read this so it probably doesn't matter anyway. :D
Click to expand...

Well, as long as I don't have to pay for it, with my tax dollars, they can get on
the internet all they want..
 
magoo said:
You have the right to drive your automobile on the highway, if you follow the rules.

That said, you need an automobile, which is not a right .

So.......you may have some sort of "entitlement" to the internet, but what about the piece of equipment to access it? or maybe a cellular phone? what about the electricity to power said device?
Well, you have to house the access and devices............so you must have a house.

Where is the financing going to come from? Your taxes or mine?:eek:
Click to expand...

Wrong, drving is not a "right", its a privilege, granted by a local authority.

The constitution does not provide this as a "right", implicitly.
 
stevedave said:
I really don't want to debate this online as it is difficult. But "human rights" is a philosophy meaning it is dynamic and change change based on its philosophers similarly to how what is moral, just, and right all change through out time and audience.

Human rights has never been about what people 'need' to survive

a good example is that Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness is an American Human right that non Americans outside of america don't have.

our understanding and defining human rights will always be subject to change.

also a right doesn't mean you have to Give something to anyone but more so that someone doesn't prevent or take away something. So the right to Internet wouldn't have to mean free internet to all but could simply mean the preventing of blocked internet / censored internet similar to free trade.

along with this global ideology of human rights you have each individuals idea of human right and I know my own personal human rights go far and beyond Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness.
Click to expand...

As long as I don't have to pay for this so called "right" to access, anyone
can do the internet. But not on my dime.
 
Well, I am so glad the internet came along when it did, I had no idea how I was able to free before it came into being.
 
stevedave said:
I really don't want to debate this online as it is difficult. But "human rights" is a philosophy meaning it is dynamic and change change based on its philosophers similarly to how what is moral, just, and right all change through out time and audience.

Human rights has never been about what people 'need' to survive

a good example is that Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness is an American Human right that non Americans outside of america don't have.

our understanding and defining human rights will always be subject to change.

also a right doesn't mean you have to Give something to anyone but more so that someone doesn't prevent or take away something. So the right to Internet wouldn't have to mean free internet to all but could simply mean the preventing of blocked internet / censored internet similar to free trade.

along with this global ideology of human rights you have each individuals idea of human right and I know my own personal human rights go far and beyond Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness.
Click to expand...

msny said:
As long as I don't have to pay for this so called "right" to access, anyone
can do the internet. But not on my dime.
Click to expand...

/thread

The rest, useless...
 
total0 said:
I don't think so. Do you think you also have the right to have your opinions posted in a newspaper, broadcasted on tv etc...?
Click to expand...

You missed my point in the second paragraph. I said people abuse the word "rights" on the internet such as forum posters who think freedom of speech applies to forums too.

When I say we have the right to the internet, I don't meant to imply we should get them for free nor do I mean to imply that companies cannot deny it to us for any reasons (if you abuse TOS or didn't pay your bill or have shitty credit, you don't get any services, for example).

Perhaps some of you guys are correct, the word isn't "rights", but rather "privileges".

As an aside, I think the internet should remain free and uncensored by the government and policies left to site owner's discretion, but that's off topic. The topic is internet access, not internet contents.
 
Ugh. I hate when Steve posts these articles and the associated show of dumbassery that follows.

Internet access being a human right simply means that you have the right to purchase unimpeded access to the internet. Same as electricity, gas, and water. It means no one is allowed to cut your internet because you were a heavy user, it means your ISP can't tier your internet to make you pay more for accessing certain types of content, and it means the government isn't allowed to censor the internet.

Internet access being a basic human right does not mean "get ALL the internets for free!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top