Has internet access become a human right?

[MakiSupaStar]

I've been keeping tabs on these protests that have fired up and knocked down Tunisia, Egypt, and if all goes well Libya, and I noticed one thing in common. All these peoples live in oppressive regimes that also blocked internet access in their countries. Well, not entirely, access to the internet and cell phone networks played a key part in the rioters success. If we talk about China and it's human rights violations, it's often brought up that the internet is deeply censored and monitored. North Korea. No internet access. It seems to be a common theme. I also remember reading somewhere that some governments are now providing internet access to its citizens. So are we witnessing internet access evolve from a a type of privilege to something that is becoming a right?

[Simo98]

I believe the ability to freely access information devoid of censorship by some corporate/government agenda is a human right, or at least it should be.

It just so happens that the internet is probably the easiest way to do it nowadays. Aside from talking to people directly its probably the only way.

[Etienned]

Why the Internet Is a Great Tool for Totalitarians

Interesting discordant note.

[Deluge Of Sound]

While access to the internet is not a human right specifically, freedom of information is (to me, YMMV. This is a seriously subjective point.)

[DerHoggz]

It is really related to freedom of speech and stuff IMO. It is a part of that , so if that is a right (I'm not sure how the world considers it), internet access is.

The real reason I'm posting in this thread is to ask Maki what his avatar is, that human reef thing?

[MakiSupaStar]

Originally Posted by Simo98

I believe the ability to freely access information devoid of censorship by some corporate/government agenda is a human right, or at least it should be.

It just so happens that the internet is probably the easiest way to do it nowadays. Aside from talking to people directly its probably the only way.

Yeah that's what I'm thinking too. The internet has kind of become an actual representation of that right. I know that Locke was talking about Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Property (that became Happiness when the US was forming it's government), what exactly would you call this free access to information in terms of a human inalienable right? Or is it even a 'right' in that sense?

[Stinsok]

It is a right to have access or a right for someone else to pay for the access?

[Deluge Of Sound]

The right to knowledge can stay dry under the umbrella of "the pursuit of happiness."

[MakiSupaStar]

Originally Posted by Deluge Of Sound

The right to knowledge can stay dry under the umbrella of "the pursuit of happiness."

I don't think information equates happiness. Information could be justified as a tool to be used on a road to happiness I think, but I don't think it could be defined as that. I think information all balanced out is neutral (despite the biases inserted by the information's authors) I think it's generally neutral by definition.

[Deluge Of Sound]

But surely the right to sensory input would determine the individualized definition of the pursuit of happiness?

"Ignorance is bliss" notwithstanding.

[MakiSupaStar]

Originally Posted by Deluge Of Sound

But surely the right to sensory input would determine the individualized definition of the pursuit of happiness?

"Ignorance is bliss" notwithstanding.

So then information is something that at it's purest form is sensory input? I think it's way more defined than that. Especially when you're talking about the internet. There's a huge cooperation required to maintain the infrastructure costs. This is something that is often subsidized by government spending. So it in theory represents the will of the people. And taken at that value it's something that exists beyond their senses. Especially when you take into account the thought of searches that a person could potential use with the internet, know that the information is available, but have never actually conducted the search while using the internet. This awareness does not require the senses until the person uses tactile, audible and visual actions to create the search (i.e. type or speak into a search engine for instance). The information is bigger than the stewards that provide the infrastructure (i.e. the government). So do these stewards (the governments) represent the will of human beings that are determining access to information a 'right'?

I'm not trying to take this into a political area. By mention of governments I simply mean the people that we put in charge. All over the world. Not country or region specific.

[DwaynieAD]

you could look at it this way; when applying for public assistance programs, such as public health care, food stamps, etc when you list your bills for the applications, you are supposed to list internet and cable, they are considered necessities by the government.

is it a human right? i dont really know, but the [US] government considers it necessary

[MakiSupaStar]

Originally Posted by DwaynieAD

you could look at it this way; when applying for public assistance programs, such as public health care, food stamps, etc when you list your bills for the applications, you are supposed to list internet and cable, they are considered necessities by the government.

is it a human right? i dont really know, but the [US] government considers it necessary

I think that's a pretty good indicator. Is this the case in countries like England? (English users, and TB folk from other parts of the world pipe in here). If so, I think we may be onto something.

[IconBasser]

I don't think it's a human right, no. Why should you pay in order for me to enjoy the privilege?

that said, I think that censoring information available on the internet is wrong, regardless of who does it.

[avvie]

The internet as I understand it was basically created by the government, so, arguably, they own it. However, I don't know if privatizing the ability to access it makes it- by extension- a private service.

I don't see it as any sort of 'human right' by any means; you have to pay for access to it unless using the government- sponsored public library route or the equivalent. Governments such as the US's who consider it to be a justifiable (but not 'necessary') expense probably do so because they recognize it's ability to provide education, job-seeking opportunities and faster, more streamlined correspondence with said government. That still does not fit the definition of a "right".

[Stinsok]

I thought Al Gore created the internet~

[bassrique]

Does my right to free speech mean other people have to pay for my printing press?

[anymajordude]

Hello, Maki: yours is a dumb question, but what can we expect from the brainwashed [as I used to be]? But I know you're a smart guy, and at least you're trying, and I compliment you for that.

Please rethink the concept of a "right". Where does it have anything to do with a particular technology? More concretely, do you seriously think that you--or more importantly, I--owe just any doofus "citizen" a web connection? What a pile of, uh, [expletive deleted].

You're welcome. Now go and sin no more.

[champbassist]

Originally Posted by anymajordude

Please rethink the concept of a "right". Where does it have anything to do with a particular technology? More concretely, do you seriously think that you--or more importantly, I--owe just any doofus "citizen" a web connection? What a pile of, uh, [expletive deleted].

Finland makes broadband a 'legal right'

[MJ5150]

With the way people give up friends, food, jobs, and even more to use the internet, I'd have to say yes.

-Mike