Should Internet Access be Considered a Human or Civil Right?

RobertKaucher

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/opinion/internet-access-is-not-a-human-right.html

Opinions?

demonfurbie

i saw that it had me thinking

i say no

at work i see people blur the lines of rights/needs to wants

ccnxjr

I'll say "no" ONLY because we still haven't managed to provide other necessities such and food and shelter.
Every year tons of food is wasted while other people starve to death, or just given the minimum to keep them clinging to the edge of life.
Perhaps 50 years ago this may have been explainable because some societies lived in isolation, such that they could not receive aid if they experience a famine or other shortages.
Through globalization there is no part of this world that we cannot touch or allocate resources to help others, most of the barriers faced now are economic/political not technological or physical.

However, I do believe the ability to communicate with others, share knowledge , experiences as well as find companionship are also necessities of life.
For some people the internet enables that to happen, and in that respect it should be ranked as a Human right.
I live in a city of millions yet sometimes i feel more connected to someone miles away as opposed to the people living right next door.
That connection is facilitated via the internet.
In that respect, when we can provide for the physical needs of our fellow brothers & sisters, then Internet Access should be considered a Human Right.

erpadmin

I don't care if the Internet is labeled a human or civil right. HOWEVER, when the Internet being labeled as one or the other means that erpadmin (or anyone else) has to pay for someone's Internet access because it's a human or civil right is when I will start to care....

Mind you, I'm sure I already pay for folks who have the Internet as I type this. But if I have to pay more, I guarantee you I will take issue with it.

A human right is defined as being "commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being." In that respect, people are NOT inherently entitled to Internet access simply because they're born. People are entitled to survive, and as someone who loves the Internet and I'm sure some genius will make an argument to the contrary, you DO NOT NEED THE INTERNET TO SURVIVE.

As for the Internet being a civil right? Well, we all pay those universal services fees the author in that article talks about so that folks in the rural parts of the country can get broadband. Beyond that, if one lives in an area where reliable broadband service is available, then heck, one will get Internet. It's kind of hard to equate the Internet to a civil rights issue. No one is going to give you slower internet because you're a minority. If you can afford the Internet, you will get the Internet.

I can tell you one thing....those protestors that used the Internet to assemble those Arab Spring protests probably paid for their own service....personal responsibility should still apply if one wants the Internet or not.

demonfurbie

its like saying every one has the right to drive/own a car but with out paying for it or having a valid license

driving is a privileged not a right

the internet should be the same way

i work for the money to pay for the computer and i work for the money to connect it to the internet

blargoe

No, Internet access is not a human right.

NinjaBoy

But that argument, however well meaning, misses a larger point: technology is an enabler of rights, not a right itself. There is a high bar for something to be considered a human right. Loosely put, it must be among the things we as humans need in order to lead healthy, meaningful lives, like freedom from torture or freedom of conscience...

This says it all.

JDMurray

I don't remember Benjamin Franklin, or the other US Founding Fathers, considering newspapers, postal mail, or access to message couriers to be a human or civil right. Until living in human society becomes impossible without the Internet, I can't see it being considered a inalienable human right. One day when there is no paper money, I suppose credit/debt cards be considered a human right too.

Anonymouse

I see it as a priviledge. Ever try buying/selling on Craigslist? You'll understand why.

SteveO86

demonfurbie wrote: »

driving is a privileged not a right

the internet should be the same way

Agreed, why should the internet be any different?

If the internet is so important it must be real choas when it goes down

ptilsen

It is not a privilege in the sense that one should need a license to do it, as with driving a car. It is not a right in the sense that society has a responsibility to provide everyone with it (it is not a human right). It is or should be a right as a source and medium for free speech. Everyone should have the right to speak, write, use the Internet, and have free thoughts. But society ought not bear the burden of providing paper, writing utensils, telephones, or Internet access. It is up to the individual to provide oneself with those things.

That said, I fully support free Internet kiosks in libraries and the like, even government-provided Internet service -- so long as the local populace has agreed (directly or through its elected representatives) to the taxes that provide for that library. I don't believe such things should be provided at a national or international level as a matter of social right.

kriscamaro68

JDMurray wrote: »

I don't remember Benjamin Franklin, or the other US Founding Fathers, considering newspapers, postal mail, or access to message couriers to be a human or civil right. Until living in human society becomes impossible without the Internet, I can't see it being considered a inalienable human right. One day when there is no paper money, I suppose credit/debt cards be considered a human right too.

Exactly. If internet was a human right then that would make owning a computer or laptop or tablet or phone a human right as well because these are what is needed to access the internet. At that point we would then be paying for everyones internet and everyones computer that cant afford it. I really dont see how either of these are my problem to pay for. Call me a mean human for not caring or what ever you want but I worked for my money so I will decide how it will be spent (even though I dont with taxes). I don't need to be paying for lazy people to look at pr0n.

JDMurray

kriscamaro68 wrote: »

If internet was a human right then that would make owning a computer or laptop or tablet or phone a human right as well because these are what is needed to access the internet.

One step further: Free access to the Internet without the need of owning any equipment.

However:

kriscamaro68 wrote: »

I really dont see how either of these are my problem to pay for. Call me a mean human for not caring or what ever you want but I worked for my money so I will decide how it will be spent (even though I dont with taxes). I don't need to be paying for lazy people to look at pr0n.

This is a very common opinion among hard-working, conservative-minded people. The prevalence of this opinion is why having freely available access to food, water, clothing, and housing are often not regarded as human rights, and instead as charity, despite their importance to people living in all human societies. Given this thinking, we are a long, long, long way from Internet access--or any other sort of technology--being any kind of right.

kriscamaro68

JDMurray wrote: »

This is a very common opinion among hard-working, conservative-minded people. The prevalence of this opinion is why having freely available access to food, water, clothing, and housing are often not regarded as human rights, and instead as charity, despite their importance to people living in all human societies. Given this thinking, we are a long, long, long way from Internet access--or any other sort of technology--being any kind of right.

But at the same time we already provide food stamps, medicaid, halfway houses, government subsidized loans for housing which I have seen first hand. My wifes brother got a house nicer than my own making $11 an hour and hardly pays anything a month for it do to governtment assisted living. Then their is monthly rent Government assisted living besides the home loans. We provide Unemployment wages. We provide free food at our schools for low income families. The list could go on and on.

I would say that we provide quite a bit already. All of this I have seen first hand as either my own family or my wifes family takes full advantage of these. I would say we dont need to add on anymore because soon the people who work hard and earn a decent wage and pay out of their own pocket for those things will be on these programs as well.

malcybood

No, definitely is not. Imagine the debate around people slacking off to surf Facebook at work if it was.................

NinjaBoy

SteveO86 wrote: »

Agreed, why should the internet be any different?

If the internet is so important it must be real choas when it goes down

You mean like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTBsm0LzSP0

exampasser

No, the last thing we need is another entitlement program as we are already over $15 Trillion in debt.

veritas_libertas

I agree with the majority on this thread, it shouldn't be a right. At the same time, I don't think it should be restricted, filtered, or banned.

JDMurray

veritas_libertas wrote: »

At the same time, I don't think it should be restricted, filtered, or banned.

Assuming that, should Internet users be allowed to have anonymity? The ability to hide one's true identity on the Internet is difficult, but not impossible. People can commit all sorts of illegal and malicious acts using false, stolen, or anonymous identities. Should people be required to submit electronic proof of their personal identity before they can "log on to and use" the Internet?

veritas_libertas

JDMurray wrote: »

Assuming that, should Internet users be allowed to have anonymity? The ability to hide one's true identity on the Internet is difficult, but not impossible. People can commit all sorts of illegal and malicious acts using false, stolen, or anonymous identities. Should people be required to submit electronic proof of their personal identity before they can "log on to and use" the Internet?

You ask a difficult question. My instinct is to say no, the price of liberty is knowing that some people will use it for evil. What are your feelings?

exampasser

veritas_libertas wrote: »

You ask a difficult question. My instinct is to say no, the price of liberty is knowing that some people will use it for evil. What are your feelings?

I agree, not to mention it would be costly and a nightmare to implement such a thing on a large scale.

jmritenour

No, it's not a human/civil right, and should not be treated as such. It never ceases to amaze me the distorted view people have on what is a basic human right, and what is a privilege these days. But I digress.

And as for the anonymity factor, the libertarian in me says that right to privacy & individual freedom, and the conservative in me says that this sort of thing shouldn't be government regulated anyway. So, no.

SteveLord

Apparently cell phones are close to a civil right. As we now pay more for individuals to get those for free. You may have even seen/heard the commercials for it.

ImTheKing

You have a right to your life, your property, and your liberty, but not a right to a cell phone or internet, and certainly not a right to my paycheck.

Apparently cell phones are close to a civil right. As we now pay more for individuals to get those for free. You may have even seen/heard the commercials for it.

Heck, I don't even own a cell phone. Sometimes it's nice to be left alone Also, nearly every public library I've been to has public internet access on public computers for a reasonable rate ($1), or even free.