I wish he had added that if internet access is not a human right, then it surely follows from one that we haven't articulated yet. I hope he would agree with t

I wish he had added that if internet access is not a human right, then it surely follows from one that we haven't articulated yet. I hope he would agree with that, but this article creates the opposite impression. I know it's onerous for people who think logically, but authors should think beyond the literal correctness of what they're saying and consider how their words will be read in the forum where they are published. I think his resistance to declaring internet access a "right" stems from his understanding that a particular technology is not the right level at which to articulate such a right, but in an op-ed column in a newspaper for general readers, this piece says that it's completely possible for citizens to be denied access to the internet with no infringement on their rights. I realize he said no such thing if you read his words precisely and logically, but dammit, that's not how op-eds are read.