4 ms·

"The Special Rapporteur considers cutting off users from internet access, regardless of the justification provided, including on the grounds of violating intell

by gnoupi 15y ago

"The Special Rapporteur considers cutting off users from internet access, regardless of the justification provided, including on the grounds of violating intellectual property rights law, to be disproportionate and thus a violation of article 19, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights." The important part is "regardless of the justification provided", in my opinion.

Mithrandir 15y ago
So they mean that if you already have internet access and it's taken away due to any condition on purpose, then your human rights have been violated.
- jessriedel 15y ago
  Importantly, this makes it a negative right rather than a positive one. That means the gov't can't block you from the internet but it's also not obliged to provide it for you, in the same way the freedom of speech means you can't be silenced but needn't be provided with a megaphone or airtime. Not that these declarations carry much weight.
- ams6110 15y ago
  Great, so I don't have to pay my Comcast bill anymore and they can't take my internet access away?
  - ugh 15y ago
    That's not how human rights (usually and also in this case) work. You yourself are responsible for getting internet access. Newspapers that don't pay their bills have no right to be bailed out. One reason for this is that freedom of speech and freedom of press are negative rights: the government is not allowed to stop you from publishing your newspapers but they also don't have to provide you with the means for publishing newspapers[#]. That's your own responsibility. The second and related reason is that private entities like companies or people are (usually) not limited by human rights. Those rights (usually) protect people from the government, not from each other. A journalist can't sue her editor for not allowing her to publish an article. (Well, she can sue but wouldn't win.) Only governments have to respect human rights. (Again, usually.) [#] As always, plenty of funny and interesting edge cases are worth discussing. What if the government bans paper? Or requires all print products to be printed on super-expensive paper that's not economical for newspapers?
- Natsu 15y ago
  What they're saying is that EU countries shouldn't be permitted to make laws that ban people from using the internet.

by gnoupi 15y ago

Mithrandir 15y ago

So they mean that if you already have internet access and it's taken away due to any condition on purpose, then your human rights have been violated.

jessriedel 15y ago
Importantly, this makes it a negative right rather than a positive one. That means the gov't can't block you from the internet but it's also not obliged to provide it for you, in the same way the freedom of speech means you can't be silenced but needn't be provided with a megaphone or airtime. Not that these declarations carry much weight.
ams6110 15y ago
Great, so I don't have to pay my Comcast bill anymore and they can't take my internet access away?
- ugh 15y ago
  That's not how human rights (usually and also in this case) work. You yourself are responsible for getting internet access. Newspapers that don't pay their bills have no right to be bailed out. One reason for this is that freedom of speech and freedom of press are negative rights: the government is not allowed to stop you from publishing your newspapers but they also don't have to provide you with the means for publishing newspapers[#]. That's your own responsibility. The second and related reason is that private entities like companies or people are (usually) not limited by human rights. Those rights (usually) protect people from the government, not from each other. A journalist can't sue her editor for not allowing her to publish an article. (Well, she can sue but wouldn't win.) Only governments have to respect human rights. (Again, usually.) [#] As always, plenty of funny and interesting edge cases are worth discussing. What if the government bans paper? Or requires all print products to be printed on super-expensive paper that's not economical for newspapers?
Natsu 15y ago
What they're saying is that EU countries shouldn't be permitted to make laws that ban people from using the internet.