• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Has internet access become a human right?

I don't know why some are equating a right to something as "free of charge" or "paid for by others."

Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to assemble peaceably, freedom of religion, and such all involve association with others to share and discuss ideas and information. A society that valued that sort of freedom before the printing press was invented would surely extend those freedoms to dissemination of ideas and information by print after. The Internet is a versatile communications medium today, just as ink and paper were a few centuries ago (but more so).

Internet access is not in itself a right, but part of an overall right to participate in sharing ideas and information. It does not imply that all individuals shall never bear any costs of enjoying that right.
 
Bob Lee (QSC) said:
I don't know why some are equating a right to something as "free of charge" or "paid for by others."

Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to assemble peaceably, freedom of religion, and such all involve association with others to share and discuss ideas and information. A society that valued that sort of freedom before the printing press was invented would surely extend those freedoms to dissemination of ideas and information by print after. The Internet is a versatile communications medium today, just as ink and paper were a few centuries ago (but more so).

Internet access is not in itself a right, but part of an overall right to participate in sharing ideas and information. It does not imply that all individuals shall never bear any costs of enjoying that right.

Great post Bob.
 
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".

The bolded portion of your own statement indicates that the government feels that access to the internet should be made available to all it's citizens, even those who cannot afford computers and/or internet services on their own. Many public universities have public use compters just for this purpose. I think internet access may be considered an implied right, otherwise it would only be available through private servers for paying customers only.
 
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

Interesting discordant note.

Nice link, but I'm calling BS.

Article said:
And contrary to what Eric Schmidt believes, authorities do have the ability to locate and monitor mobile phone users, as well as censor their messages.
The author completely ignors what this Scmidt guy said. He said you can't keep track of a billion people. I doesn't matter what China's goverment can crack down on if a billion people are doing it. Every time a message is censored it has to be in plain language or a code the censors know and have programmed into the search.
 
So how would you define rights, then? If government doesn't grant you rights, then what organization would actually be qualified to do that?

Or should we just say rights don't exist then? Because if anybody was to grant you rights, it would automatically imply that they have the power to take them away


Below is an excerpt from the article linked in my signature. It relates to the 2nd Amendment and therefore is U.S. - centric, but I believe the concepts still apply to this thread.

Natural Rights

“And do you also understand that the Bill of Rights is not the source of our rights. It’s not even a complete list of our rights.”

“What are you talking about?” I asked.

“Mac’s losing it,” Bill said and threw his arms up.

“I’m asking you if you understand that we do not get our rights from the Bill of Rights.”

“Of course we do,” Bill said. “That’s why they wrote the Bill of Rights.”

“I’ve got to agree with Bill,” I said.

Dave said nothing. He seemed to be thinking.

“I’m saying this because the Founding Fathers did not believe we got our rights from the Bill of Rights. Nor did they believe they came about as a result of being American, Christian, of European decent, or white. They believed everyone had these rights even if they lived in Europe, China, or the moon. They called them Natural Rights. Where these rights were not allowed, they believed they still existed but were denied.”

“You should be writing fiction,” Bill said.

“Well, it’s a question as to whether or not our rights exist apart from government,” Mac said. “Let me ask you this,” he said to Bill. “In a country where children have no civil rights, do they still have a right not to be molested? Do women in countries where they have a second-citizen status have the right not to be abused by their husbands, even if the government won’t protect them?”

Bill didn’t answer.

“Then is it too much of a stretch for you to understand that the Founding Fathers believed everyone has the right to free speech, freedom of religion, the right to fair trials...?” His voice trailed off.

Bill still wouldn’t answer.

“In other words,” Dave said, “it’s a question as to whether the rights of the citizens in China are at the pleasure of the government or if they have them but are being denied, or if the Jews had basic human rights in Germany even if Hitler didn’t let them exercise them?”

“Yes. All I want to know is if that’s hard for you to see.” He looked at Bill who was still silent.

“Then I see what you’re saying,” Dave said, “But I’m not sure how it relates to the 2nd Amendment.”

Bill still said nothing—but neither did I.

“Take it a step further. If the government passed a law tomorrow that said we didn’t have the right to free speech, or the right to free worship, or freedom of the press, would those rights no longer exist, or would they be simply denied? If the Constitution is amended depriving us of our rights, do those rights cease to exist?”

“What’s the answer?” Dave asked Mac.

“The answer, according to the guys who set up this country, is yes, we would still have those rights. We’re just being denied them. Because of that, it’s the way we have to look at the Constitution.”

Bill rubbed his nose.

Dave said, “Okay, I never thought of it that way, but I’ll buy into it for a moment.”

“It may be,” Mac said, “that in reality, rights are a figment of our imagination. But the Founding Fathers believed they existed and that’s how this country was set up. Rights are something that come with being human. The Founders never believed we got them from the government. If and when the United States goes away, the rights will still be there.”
 
Below is an excerpt from the article linked in my signature. It relates to the 2nd Amendment and therefore is U.S. - centric, but I believe the concepts still apply to this thread.

Natural Rights

“And do you also understand that the Bill of Rights is not the source of our rights. It’s not even a complete list of our rights.”

“What are you talking about?” I asked.

“Mac’s losing it,” Bill said and threw his arms up.

“I’m asking you if you understand that we do not get our rights from the Bill of Rights.”

“Of course we do,” Bill said. “That’s why they wrote the Bill of Rights.”

“I’ve got to agree with Bill,” I said.

Dave said nothing. He seemed to be thinking.

“I’m saying this because the Founding Fathers did not believe we got our rights from the Bill of Rights. Nor did they believe they came about as a result of being American, Christian, of European decent, or white. They believed everyone had these rights even if they lived in Europe, China, or the moon. They called them Natural Rights. Where these rights were not allowed, they believed they still existed but were denied.”

“You should be writing fiction,” Bill said.

“Well, it’s a question as to whether or not our rights exist apart from government,” Mac said. “Let me ask you this,” he said to Bill. “In a country where children have no civil rights, do they still have a right not to be molested? Do women in countries where they have a second-citizen status have the right not to be abused by their husbands, even if the government won’t protect them?”

Bill didn’t answer.

“Then is it too much of a stretch for you to understand that the Founding Fathers believed everyone has the right to free speech, freedom of religion, the right to fair trials...?” His voice trailed off.

Bill still wouldn’t answer.

“In other words,” Dave said, “it’s a question as to whether the rights of the citizens in China are at the pleasure of the government or if they have them but are being denied, or if the Jews had basic human rights in Germany even if Hitler didn’t let them exercise them?”

“Yes. All I want to know is if that’s hard for you to see.” He looked at Bill who was still silent.

“Then I see what you’re saying,” Dave said, “But I’m not sure how it relates to the 2nd Amendment.”

Bill still said nothing—but neither did I.

“Take it a step further. If the government passed a law tomorrow that said we didn’t have the right to free speech, or the right to free worship, or freedom of the press, would those rights no longer exist, or would they be simply denied? If the Constitution is amended depriving us of our rights, do those rights cease to exist?”

“What’s the answer?” Dave asked Mac.

“The answer, according to the guys who set up this country, is yes, we would still have those rights. We’re just being denied them. Because of that, it’s the way we have to look at the Constitution.”

Bill rubbed his nose.

Dave said, “Okay, I never thought of it that way, but I’ll buy into it for a moment.”

“It may be,” Mac said, “that in reality, rights are a figment of our imagination. But the Founding Fathers believed they existed and that’s how this country was set up. Rights are something that come with being human. The Founders never believed we got them from the government. If and when the United States goes away, the rights will still be there.”

That was a whole lot of reading for the word 'inalienable'.
 
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.
exactly....far to many people assume that they have rights to this or that,especially here....lately the right to a home is a popular theme ......and on the surface who could argue with something that makes canookistanians feel all warm and fuzzy.....until you recall that the guy who pays for it all has to pay more and keep less of what earns for his own family,so someone else can have the right to a home...
 
In the USA, public schools and libraries provide access to the internet without charge to the public. If, as some might suggest, access to the internet was a "privilage", then public institutions would not be compelled to provide this service for free. I think the idea of freedom of information, which includes access to information, plays a role in how internet access is viewed in the USA (I don't know about things in Canada). Every public library that I have been to provides free computer and
internet services to the public, even if they do not have a library card for that particular library.

Also, is it a right to home ownership? Or, is it a right to housing? Are the two things being confused? All Americans have a right to own a home if they have the resources to pay for it. Also, all Americans have a right to housing of some sort because of the threat to life and health if housing is refused (homeless shelters count as temporary housing for emergency situations, but are not supposed to be permanent.)
 

Latest posts