The Internet is a Basic Human Right

[kirbyrj]

The internet is not a basic human right. It makes human existence easier and more complete, but it is not a right. Very few things are basic human rights when you get down to it. The Declaration of Independence: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness...that's it under the heading "All men are created equal". And that's just in how that document was worded ("endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights") compared to the Bill of Rights which is only applicable to Americans. Even the French with their liberty, equality, fraternity motto hit closer to basic human rights than having the internet.

When you get right down to it, you're not arguing whether or not it's a right, but a necessity like food, water, shelter. Even then it is not a basic human necessity anymore than a telephone, credit card, or Walmart nearby.

I use the internet everyday, but if for some reason I could never use it again, it's not like I would fall over dead within a month.

 

[cnick79]

I like it! Put that in the Bill of Rights. The right to bear arms, the right to vote, the right to use the internet.

 

[shadin]

It's obvious people really aren't reading the article when they say the Internet isn't a human right. The courts are saying that it's against the Declaration of Human Rights in the French constitution to try and prevent someone access to a form of public communication. It doesn't mean that everyone should get internet for free, it's saying that if you want to be on the internet no one can tell you that you can't be.

 

[Methadras]

Free association and free speech are privileges, not rights

I think you need to think what is really involved in the TCP/IP protocols, and not go by the media/layidiot idea of "teh internets".

I certainly hope what you just said was sarcasm because that is just wrong. In the US Constitution and in the EU Charter (I believe, I'll go back and read it), freedom of association and free speech are indeed rights, not privileges. Get your facts straight, especially on this most basic of facts.

 

[Ockie]

*yawn* really? You are apparently too old to employ basic reading comprehension. No one is claiming that an iPhone is a basic human right. What people are saying is that, IN THE MODERN CIVILIZED WORLD, access to the internet is so important to job opportunities, educational opportunities, freedom of communication, etc... that it IS now the equivalent of what should be protected as a basic "right." And trying to defeat that argument by pointing out that there are people in third world countries living in poverty is asinine as it ignores that OUR situation is different than THEIRS.

If you read the opinion it doesn't say "the internet is a basic human right," it refers to the RIGHT OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND COMMUNICATION (does that sound familiar?) and they determined that FOR FRANCE, the denial of internet access was a substantial infringement upon the free exercise of that right.

I read some article that there is a school trying to get each kid an iphone because it was a right for them and that they can use it to learn.

I think that I have a right to a satellite phone because it falls under freedom of expression and communication.... so who's going to fund me one?

 

[Methadras]

By deeming access to the internet in France as a right, I assume that now all ISP's in France will start providing for free. Afterall, how can you pay for the access to your newly found right? That would be unFrench? No?

 

[RangerXML]

Steve, ever hear of a "can of worms"? You just opened a big one, LMAO!

 

[Methadras]

It's obvious people really aren't reading the article when they say the Internet isn't a human right. The courts are saying that it's against the Declaration of Human Rights in the French constitution to try and prevent someone access to a form of public communication. It doesn't mean that everyone should get internet for free, it's saying that if you want to be on the internet no one can tell you that you can't be.

What you think it means as opposed ot how it will be interpreted are two different things. Once you make something a right, then people will demand it and for free. If you have to pay to have the ability to access one of your newly found human rights would in essence be a violation of those rights. Your newly founded rights to access the internet cannot be abrogated by money as a pay-to-play system.

 

[Methadras]

I use the internet everyday, but if for some reason I could never use it again, it's not like I would fall over dead within a month.

If you were part of the new entitlement generation you would.

 

[Methadras]

Come on. Let's be honest here. The internet or access to the internet is not a basic human right. Anyone who thinks so is delusional or is nothing more than a contrarian. Food, water, equal treatment under the law, privacy, association, freedom of mobility, etc. those are basic human rights. You won't die if you don't get access to the internet, no more so that you won't die if you never have sex. God knows most of you never have and probably never will, but you never hear people screaming about sex as a basic human right do you? So why are any of you proponents screeching about making access to the internet a basic human right? Get your priorities straight.

 

[gibber]

No please the last thing we need is more stupid people on the internet.

We shouldn't let stupid people drive cars either.

I think both people who don't use turn signals, and people who drive in the left lane when not passing, should be castrated. This will improve the planet via reduced asshole breeding.

 

[stevedave]

Basic human rights are only so because someone declared them so. If enough people declare internet as a basic human right it becomes so.


It wont be long before we get another internet and then competition will begin and laws like so will be even harder to enforce.


I for one require the internet to do much of my job at home and work. Do I "need" it no but I would loose my job without it.

 

[tjmagneto]

So does this mean that access to porn via the internet is a basic human right???

 

[xdivenx]

Wait, isn't the right to watch TV one too.....Thanks US congress.

 

[shadin]

Come on. Let's be honest here. The internet or access to the internet is not a basic human right. Anyone who thinks so is delusional or is nothing more than a contrarian. Food, water, equal treatment under the law, privacy, association, freedom of mobility, etc. those are basic human rights. You won't die if you don't get access to the internet, no more so that you won't die if you never have sex. God knows most of you never have and probably never will, but you never hear people screaming about sex as a basic human right do you? So why are any of you proponents screeching about making access to the internet a basic human right? Get your priorities straight.

You're completely missing the point. Look back to my post, they're saying that no one can deny you access to the internet, which is a form of public communication, and free (as in, unhindered, not free of charge) access to such forms of communication are a right that you have under their constitution. That's not my interpretation, that's the court's ruling and their interpretation of it. You're trying to make an intellectual debate off of an unintellectual interpretation of a cut and dry ruling.

 

[kirbyrj]

You're completely missing the point. Look back to my post, they're saying that no one can deny you access to the internet, which is a form of public communication, and free (as in, unhindered, not free of charge) access to such forms of communication are a right that you have under their constitution. That's not my interpretation, that's the court's ruling and their interpretation of it. You're trying to make an intellectual debate off of an unintellectual interpretation of a cut and dry ruling.

The problem is that there are many forms of communication still open to a user who has been denied access to the internet. It does not mean that the individual has been denied access to those forms of communication, just a particular medium.

 

[shadin]

The problem is that there are many forms of communication still open to a user who has been denied access to the internet. It does not mean that the individual has been denied access to those forms of communication, just a particular medium.

The court is saying that it doesn't matter. The internet is a form of communication, therefore no one can tell you you can't have access to it if you choose to do so.

 

[rhouck]

I read some article that there is a school trying to get each kid an iphone because it was a right for them and that they can use it to learn.

I think that I have a right to a satellite phone because it falls under freedom of expression and communication.... so who's going to fund me one?

What are you talking about? It being a right just means they can't deny you the OPPORTUNITY to have one; it doesn't mean they have to provide you with one. Your argument makes no sense.

 

[rhouck]

The problem is that there are many forms of communication still open to a user who has been denied access to the internet. It does not mean that the individual has been denied access to those forms of communication, just a particular medium.

Take a second and reread that.... if any court actually followed that ridiculous logic it would be the WORST slippery slope decision ever. So as long as they leave you one (no matter how limited) medium of communication, then there is no problem?

 

[JUSTJOEL73]

Looks like France will be providing free internet because it is a basic human right. The judge has ruled it is necessary for the dignity and freedom of all people and cannot be denied to them. Does theat mean that if I don't pay for my ISP service now they are legally required to keep it running or they would be infringing on my rights?

 

[Katalysis]

The freedom from the government restricting your access to information and communication should be a basic human right. What they are doing in China by filtering out unpopular (for the ruling government) opinions and facts is violating their right to free speech. In that sense, a free internet is a basic human right.

I don't think anyone here is arguing that everyone should be given free internet access because it is a right, but rather they have the right to knowleged and information unfiltered by the government.

It's like no one else has ever read 1984 around here...

 

[qdemn7]

Dont steal shit and you wont have a problem with the RIAA?
Really? Downloading copyrighted material is a right?

You people need to read more history books and get a clearer idea of what a "right" really is.

And you need to read more history and read what the Founders said about Copyright. It wasn't meant to be a perpetual source of money for a business OR individual. Something called the Public Interest also mattered. What has happened is a bunch of big corporations have bought and paid for politicians around the world, across the political spectrum to guarantee them a permanent source of profit.

Set ALL Copyrights and Patents to one single non-renewable 20 year term, and then we can discuss getting tough on pirates. This bullshit idea that all one person or business has to do is have one single creative idea, and they're set for life is warping our society and diminishing the freedoms of the many to enrich the few.

http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid:395551

One of the duties given to Congress in Article I of the Constitution is "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

What this means—contrary to many people's understandings of what copyrights are for—is that copyrights and patents don't simply exist to enrich their authors and inventors; rather, the idea is to allow these people to have "exclusive right" to created works "for limited times" only insofar as this is necessary "to promote the progress of science and useful arts." Copyright, in other words, is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

This original vision has surely been lost. The Copyright Act of 1790—the first passed by the U.S. Congress—set copyrights for a single term of 14 years, with renewal possible for a second term of 14 years if the author was still alive. Today copyrights last for the life of the author plus 70 years, which in practice means that almost nothing created during your lifetime will be out of copyright for as long as you or your children are alive. To take but one example, generously assuming Joss Whedon lives until he is 80, Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1997) will not enter the public domain until 2114—especially ironic given the show's own use of public domain works like Dracula.

Worse, it's not clear that anything currently under copyright will ever be allowed into the public domain; corporations like Disney have successfully lobbied for copyright extension whenever 1920s properties like Mickey Mouse have come anywhere close to losing protection.

 

[ZDPhoenix]

Considering that the country was founded (or taken from, depending on your argument) on the right to bear arms and it was the foundation of this nation, it's a little hard to argue that.

Obvious troll is obvious.

Actually, I work in the firearm industry and it's under scrutiny all the time, by the people who claim to have the foundation of our nation in their best interest. Much like internet usage, it's something that becomes a heated issue. Being called "unscrupulous" by the politicians I voted in (when they know nothing of my business or how it works) is harsh. It's something I'm passionate about and JUST like the internet, I think that when you take away something that's used to defend, enhance or convey your way of life.... you're adding to a brick wall of control. So saying it's a basic human right, is a great step in my opinion.

No troll was intended there at all, if you seriously think that.

 

[Htr-Labs]

And you need to read more history and read what the Founders said about Copyright. It wasn't meant to be a perpetual source of money for a business OR individual. Something called the Public Interest also mattered. What has happened is a bunch of big corporations have bought and paid for politicians around the world, across the political spectrum to guarantee them a permanent source of profit.

Set ALL Copyrights and Patents to one single non-renewable 20 year term, and then we can discuss getting tough on pirates. This bullshit idea that all one person or business has to do is have one single creative idea, and they're set for life is warping our society and diminishing the freedoms of the many to enrich the few.

http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid:395551

Finally! Thank you Sir! Couldn't have said it better myself.

Peace

 

[UrielDagda]

Come on. Let's be honest here. The internet or access to the internet is not a basic human right. Anyone who thinks so is delusional or is nothing more than a contrarian. Food, water, equal treatment under the law, privacy, association, freedom of mobility, etc. those are basic human rights. You won't die if you don't get access to the internet, no more so that you won't die if you never have sex. God knows most of you never have and probably never will, but you never hear people screaming about sex as a basic human right do you? So why are any of you proponents screeching about making access to the internet a basic human right? Get your priorities straight.

I'm not sure if you were just trying to make a point, or sound like a complete douche, but I think that kinda made it sound more like the latter.

 

[shadin]

Looks like France will be providing free internet because it is a basic human right. The judge has ruled it is necessary for the dignity and freedom of all people and cannot be denied to them. Does theat mean that if I don't pay for my ISP service now they are legally required to keep it running or they would be infringing on my rights?

.... please read the article and thread again. They're not saying people have to have internet access provided to them, they're saying that the Internet is a form of public communication, and therefore the government cannot arbitrarily deny access to it.

...they're saying that no one can deny you access to the internet, which is a form of public communication, and free (as in, unhindered, not free of charge) access to such forms of communication are a right that you have under their constitution.

 

[kirbyrj]

The court is saying that it doesn't matter. The internet is a form of communication, therefore no one can tell you you can't have access to it if you choose to do so.

I understand this concept, however it is nonsense. People have limits placed on their communication all the time. When you are arrested, you are allowed 1 phone call. You are not allowed unlimited access to any form of communication when you are guilty of a crime. France could easily just say, you are allowed to use the internet once a year for 10 minutes and technically they would not be denying anyone rights to "use" the internet.

 

[shadin]

I understand this concept, however it is nonsense. People have limits placed on their communication all the time. When you are arrested, you are allowed 1 phone call. You are not allowed unlimited access to any form of communication when you are guilty of a crime. France could easily just say, you are allowed to use the internet once a year for 10 minutes and technically they would not be denying anyone rights to "use" the internet.

They would, since they placed limits on it. Call it nonsense, but that's the way it works, and I'd think that since it works in favor of the people's rights then we wouldn't be so quick to call it nonsense. I can't believe the French courts ruled that the government cannot arbitrarily deny people access to the Internet and we have people flaming it.

 

[kirbyrj]

They would, since they placed limits on it. Call it nonsense, but that's the way it works, and I'd think that since it works in favor of the people's rights then we wouldn't be so quick to call it nonsense. I can't believe the French courts ruled that the government cannot arbitrarily deny people access to the Internet and we have people flaming it.

You are talking about people who have committed "crimes" using the internet, however. This happens all the time. Violent criminals who are released from prison aren't allowed to own guns even though there is a right to bear arms. Background checks take place all the time limiting people's ability to work in certain places.

For the general public, there is no reason to limit the use of the internet.

 

[shadin]

You are talking about people who have committed "crimes" using the internet, however. This happens all the time. Violent criminals who are released from prison aren't allowed to own guns even though there is a right to bear arms. Background checks take place all the time limiting people's ability to work in certain places.

For the general public, there is no reason to limit the use of the internet.

Read the article again. The proposed internet "police" would be able to circumvent the justice system and cut people off the internet without ever proving they had done anything in a court of law. There's all sorts of circumstances where convicted criminals may have temporary limits placed on certain rights depending on the crime, but this ruling is saying that access to the internet is no different than general free speech or other forms of public communication set down in their Constitution, and can't be revoked by the government at a whim.

 

[niconx]

OMG I just had the best idea. Ok so AOL is having trouble right? Ok so, why don't we put everyone on AOL! Free AOL dualup accounts will be limited to the AOL network only, no true internets! The govt of france can pay a flat fee to AOL every year for the service. Good idea!?

 

[Wumpus]

I certainly hope what you just said was sarcasm because that is just wrong. In the US Constitution and in the EU Charter (I believe, I'll go back and read it), freedom of association and free speech are indeed rights, not privileges. Get your facts straight, especially on this most basic of facts.

My point was sarcastic (and my [colon close parenthesis] turned into a yellow smiley).

All the internet is are a bunch of computers that exchange packets. What a "you can't use the internet" sentence means is that you can no longer associate with people and companies via communication and you may no longer use TCP/IP packets as a form of communication.

Of course if you are a strict constructionalist (I don't think they have infected the EU yet), this might means that that your "free speech" is limited to verbal speech or at best horse carried parchment and your firearms to smoothbore musket, and it is ok to prohibit packet-based transmission.

I'm still trying to understand how people think that "banning x from the internet" doesn't equal "wholesale violating x's rights of speech and association".

 

[Methadras]

You're completely missing the point. Look back to my post, they're saying that no one can deny you access to the internet, which is a form of public communication, and free (as in, unhindered, not free of charge) access to such forms of communication are a right that you have under their constitution. That's not my interpretation, that's the court's ruling and their interpretation of it. You're trying to make an intellectual debate off of an unintellectual interpretation of a cut and dry ruling.

No, I didn't miss the point. I was making another one on top of yours. The point being that you cannot be compelled to pay for a right. If the French Supreme Court deems access to the internet to be a right, even under your own definition of unhindered, it would be an implied understanding that unhindered access would also demand access at any time, which will lead to the implication that if it's a right, you cannot be compelled to pay for it.

What the French Supreme Court did is fabricate, out of whole cloth, that internet access and ultimately the internet itself for French Citizens is a right. This will have implications that I can't even begin to imagine.

 

[Methadras]

What are you talking about? It being a right just means they can't deny you the OPPORTUNITY to have one; it doesn't mean they have to provide you with one. Your argument makes no sense.

But that is exactly what will happen. Because now that it has been labeled a right for access or otherwise, people will demand that this right be made free. You need to start thinking like a lawyer/bureaucrat. The question will be asked and that is, tell me which right you have to pay for?

 

[Technoob]

What many are missing is that each country gets to decide what rights its citizens have. Barring the natural rights view atm, France's court has found that the internet is a right.

The US and other countries are unlikely to have the same finding, but that's why we live in different countries.

Can't say I agree that use of the internet is some basic human right, but nice to see a bad bad copyright law get gutted.

 

[Methadras]

My point was sarcastic (and my [colon close parenthesis] turned into a yellow smiley).

All the internet is are a bunch of computers that exchange packets. What a "you can't use the internet" sentence means is that you can no longer associate with people and companies via communication and you may no longer use TCP/IP packets as a form of communication.

Of course if you are a strict constructionalist (I don't think they have infected the EU yet), this might means that that your "free speech" is limited to verbal speech or at best horse carried parchment and your firearms to smoothbore musket, and it is ok to prohibit packet-based transmission.

I'm still trying to understand how people think that "banning x from the internet" doesn't equal "wholesale violating x's rights of speech and association".

Okay, I got your sarcasm. Sorry for the confusion on my part. While I'm not a strict constructionalist, I think US Constitutional rights as enumerated in the BIll of Rights are independent of modern constructs or legal vehicles that are used to obtain them. Speech is speech regardless of medium or device, the right bear arms is independent of the type of armament used to exercise that right (within reason). Packet based information requires an origination and a destination, that is speech as far as I'm concerned and shouldn't be prohibited even at the point of a gun.

 

[mstersmith1]

My point was sarcastic (and my [colon close parenthesis] turned into a yellow smiley).

All the internet is are a bunch of computers that exchange packets. What a "you can't use the internet" sentence means is that you can no longer associate with people and companies via communication and you may no longer use TCP/IP packets as a form of communication.

Of course if you are a strict constructionalist (I don't think they have infected the EU yet), this might means that that your "free speech" is limited to verbal speech or at best horse carried parchment and your firearms to smoothbore musket, and it is ok to prohibit packet-based transmission.

I'm still trying to understand how people think that "banning x from the internet" doesn't equal "wholesale violating x's rights of speech and association".

Our constitution does not effect Europe. An no it does not hinder any ones rights. Boo hoo you have to bang rocks because you cant behave your self. Should just cut there tongue out and break there hands. Problem solved.

 

[Methadras]

I'm not sure if you were just trying to make a point, or sound like a complete douche, but I think that kinda made it sound more like the latter.

Forgot the sarcasm tag in that sentence. I means seriously are we going to have to petition Steve or Kyle to actually create a real sarcasm tag to denote sarcasm?

 

[Methadras]

.... please read the article and thread again. They're not saying people have to have internet access provided to them, they're saying that the Internet is a form of public communication, and therefore the government cannot arbitrarily deny access to it.

Right and because therefore the government cannot arbitrarily deny access to it, people will demand that they will not have to arbitrarily pay for a right they were just granted because by not paying they are having their speech squelched and the internet in France was declared speech.

 

[Tekara]

But that is exactly what will happen. Because now that it has been labeled a right for access or otherwise, people will demand that this right be made free. You need to start thinking like a lawyer/bureaucrat. The question will be asked and that is, tell me which right you have to pay for?

To be bluntly honest, all rights are paid for, to our government, in the form of taxes. The protection of our rights is a integral part of the social contract.

It'll most likely fall in line with the protected right to pursue happiness. If you want it, you have to get it yourself, through your own means, without causing harm to others.