5 ms·

> A human right to unimpeded use of carriages would seem hilarious today, In an alternate universe, the author could have used "freedom of the press" as the an

> A human right to unimpeded use of carriages would seem hilarious today, In an alternate universe, the author could have used "freedom of the press" as the anecdote. In 2012, where are you going to keep your printing press? But for the fact that the Constitution mentions a free "press", the word would seem hilariously backwards to us today. It is a fine thing to be paralyzed about writing legislation that restricts freedom that could have unintended consequences a hundred years hence. But I do not think that we face the same problem when recognizing a right.

alex_stoddard 15y ago
But what right is being recognized? I think there is a distinction to be made between the internet as material infrastructure and the internet as a medium of civil discourse. The former is only relevant in as much as totalitarian control of infrastructure can be used as a means of denying the latter - that is civil discourse critical of a regime. Vint Cerf is arguing for a higher, abstract, freedom of uncensored communication which should not be confused with a civil obligation to provide a certain infrastructure. The idea of "a right to internet access" is dangerous if it is understood too narrowly, focusing on a current means rather than a properly recognized timeless end. Internet access is a public good, as is the physical existence of material printing presses. But that doesn't oblige a government to build a certain communications infrastructure (although a wise government might well chose to encourage such). A "higher" right to uncensored communication does oblige a just government to never censor the internet or deny access to it. A right in this sense might be better understood as a restriction on government: "Congress shall make no law ..." rather than "Congress shall ensure the provision of ..."

alex_stoddard 15y ago

But what right is being recognized? I think there is a distinction to be made between the internet as material infrastructure and the internet as a medium of civil discourse. The former is only relevant in as much as totalitarian control of infrastructure can be used as a means of denying the latter - that is civil discourse critical of a regime. Vint Cerf is arguing for a higher, abstract, freedom of uncensored communication which should not be confused with a civil obligation to provide a certain infrastructure. The idea of "a right to internet access" is dangerous if it is understood too narrowly, focusing on a current means rather than a properly recognized timeless end. Internet access is a public good, as is the physical existence of material printing presses. But that doesn't oblige a government to build a certain communications infrastructure (although a wise government might well chose to encourage such). A "higher" right to uncensored communication does oblige a just government to never censor the internet or deny access to it. A right in this sense might be better understood as a restriction on government: "Congress shall make no law ..." rather than "Congress shall ensure the provision of ..."