3 ms·

(Apologies to non-US hackers, the following reply is couched entirely in the context of the Constitution, however I think the thrust is relevant in general) So

(Apologies to non-US hackers, the following reply is couched entirely in the context of the Constitution, however I think the thrust is relevant in general) So, all the other replies so far note the explicit mention of "the press". I'll first note that we certainly no longer talk about "the press" in reference to physical presses, and I'd naïvely hazard that the framers of the constitution didn't mean it that way either. In that regard I think it's a bit of a red-herring to talk about. The critical point really is whether we as free people have the freedom to communicate and associate. The reason why the internet is interesting is because it's the confluence of two of our existing rights. Sure the internet can be used for the purpose of mass media publishing, in a manner that would be analogous/familiar to the framers. But i would argue that the internet's facility for real time communications has done something unique. The internet as a communications technology has enabled communities to form that, while not without precedent[1], would not otherwise exist. So, to me, access to the internet is relevant both to the freedom of the press and the freedom to associate mentioned in the constitution. It becomes problematic to say that government or corporations can stand in the way of my intent or desire to communicate with whom i wish. I'd like to flip this on it's head. The United States Postal Service is explicitly established in the Constitution (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Clause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Clause and note particularly that infrastructure was an important point of discussion/controversy that is essentially a footnote/non-issue now). So, Why isn't internet access guaranteed by the US government in a similar fashion? [1] Organizations which communicate primarily on the basis of correspondance have existed for centuries, but i'd argue the majority of them have been niche and primarily affluent, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Society http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Society or more recently science fiction fan zines.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
- knowtheory 15y ago
  [Edit just to make this comment sensible w/o it's predecesor: Its author asked whether discussing the Constitution was relevant in the context of general human rights (rather than a matter of US law), and observed that there are a number of abridgements we tolerate with respect to our rights in the US.] My point is that the Constitution is an instance/attempt to enshrine what people viewed as natural rights of man into law. In that context, i think the Constitution is relevant, in looking at what it was that they were attempting to guarantee. I'm not materially concerned with the abridgment of rights in extreme cases. In order to guarantee a orderly/functioning society, we submit to some limits on our inalienable rights. The important thing is that they are inalienable. The material point is whether access to communities that only exists on the internet is something that shouldn't be interfered with or denied at the whims of others with whom our interests may diverge. I.e. can your internet service provider disconnect you because they don't like you? :P
knowtheory 15y ago
Oh, and as a matter of personal investment, i am, in quite a number of ways, a personal beneficiary of the communities that the internet enabled. Without the internet and the freedom to associate, I would not have met my wife, a number of good friends, some of whom I been hired by, and in other cases hired, etc., etc. This is also why things like SOPA/PIPA and net neutrality are both such fraught topics and also vitally important discussions to engage in.
ctdonath 15y ago
"Freedom of the press" presumes the right to build, buy, or borrow a press. Of course the framers of the constitution referenced physical presses as part of that right. Insofar as the government providing Internet access under a logical expansion of the postal service, that is an enumerated obligated power of government, not a right. The government is required to provide it (albeit ill-defined), which is different from you having a right to it.
- knowtheory 15y ago
  Do you have any additional references to cite regarding your claim? Cause the constitution itself only makes references to "the press" in the first amendment, which you can reproduce in full, since it's so short: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (edit: I don't mean that as a challenge, I am genuinely curious if you know more about this than I presume to. Sorry if that came off a little catty) And perhaps i wasn't explicit enough, i'm not claiming that the USPS is a right (it isn't), but the point was that it is important enough that it was established in the Constitution, although i would want to dig up additional resources as to whether that is an act of practical expedience, principle, or both. Regardless, the question still stands. Why doesn't the US government do for the internet what it does for mail?
  - ctdonath 15y ago
    Freedom of the press is moot if you don't have a press, or are limited to antiques. Gun rights activists are fighting a similar issue in areas where the relevant enumerated right is formally acknowledged yet acquisition of viable tools needed to exercise that right are forbidden. A right is suppressed if the government prohibits tools needed to exercise it in a normal, modern manner. "You can have a musket (but no cartridges or semiautomatics), so your right to bear arms is not infringed" is just as absurd as "you can have a Gutenberg-style movable type press (but no photocopiers or websites), so your right to speech & press are not infringed". Methinks the government COULD consider the internet a logical technological extension of Constitution Article I Section 8 "The Congress shall have Power ... To establish Post Offices and post Roads". If we want "press" to include "blogging from my iPhone", then surely "post" (as in mail and delivery thereof) should include "e-mail" (and delivery thereof). Insofar as it is treated as a "common carrier" wherein delivery is assured strictly regardless of content, and nothing akin to the gov't monopoly on First Class mail, that would be a proper exercise of an assigned federal power in a modern context. There is a subtle but important semantic difference between the governmental power to provide a service to citizens vs. the citizen's right to that service. In this thread's context, it's akin to the obligation of the gov't to deliver mail to your door (or even just to a local Post Office), but there is nothing obligating the government to bring mail into your house and read it too you (or transport you to the Post Office to pick up a package).

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

knowtheory 15y ago
[Edit just to make this comment sensible w/o it's predecesor: Its author asked whether discussing the Constitution was relevant in the context of general human rights (rather than a matter of US law), and observed that there are a number of abridgements we tolerate with respect to our rights in the US.] My point is that the Constitution is an instance/attempt to enshrine what people viewed as natural rights of man into law. In that context, i think the Constitution is relevant, in looking at what it was that they were attempting to guarantee. I'm not materially concerned with the abridgment of rights in extreme cases. In order to guarantee a orderly/functioning society, we submit to some limits on our inalienable rights. The important thing is that they are inalienable. The material point is whether access to communities that only exists on the internet is something that shouldn't be interfered with or denied at the whims of others with whom our interests may diverge. I.e. can your internet service provider disconnect you because they don't like you? :P

knowtheory 15y ago

Oh, and as a matter of personal investment, i am, in quite a number of ways, a personal beneficiary of the communities that the internet enabled. Without the internet and the freedom to associate, I would not have met my wife, a number of good friends, some of whom I been hired by, and in other cases hired, etc., etc. This is also why things like SOPA/PIPA and net neutrality are both such fraught topics and also vitally important discussions to engage in.

ctdonath 15y ago

"Freedom of the press" presumes the right to build, buy, or borrow a press. Of course the framers of the constitution referenced physical presses as part of that right. Insofar as the government providing Internet access under a logical expansion of the postal service, that is an enumerated obligated power of government, not a right. The government is required to provide it (albeit ill-defined), which is different from you having a right to it.

knowtheory 15y ago
Do you have any additional references to cite regarding your claim? Cause the constitution itself only makes references to "the press" in the first amendment, which you can reproduce in full, since it's so short: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (edit: I don't mean that as a challenge, I am genuinely curious if you know more about this than I presume to. Sorry if that came off a little catty) And perhaps i wasn't explicit enough, i'm not claiming that the USPS is a right (it isn't), but the point was that it is important enough that it was established in the Constitution, although i would want to dig up additional resources as to whether that is an act of practical expedience, principle, or both. Regardless, the question still stands. Why doesn't the US government do for the internet what it does for mail?
- ctdonath 15y ago
  Freedom of the press is moot if you don't have a press, or are limited to antiques. Gun rights activists are fighting a similar issue in areas where the relevant enumerated right is formally acknowledged yet acquisition of viable tools needed to exercise that right are forbidden. A right is suppressed if the government prohibits tools needed to exercise it in a normal, modern manner. "You can have a musket (but no cartridges or semiautomatics), so your right to bear arms is not infringed" is just as absurd as "you can have a Gutenberg-style movable type press (but no photocopiers or websites), so your right to speech & press are not infringed". Methinks the government COULD consider the internet a logical technological extension of Constitution Article I Section 8 "The Congress shall have Power ... To establish Post Offices and post Roads". If we want "press" to include "blogging from my iPhone", then surely "post" (as in mail and delivery thereof) should include "e-mail" (and delivery thereof). Insofar as it is treated as a "common carrier" wherein delivery is assured strictly regardless of content, and nothing akin to the gov't monopoly on First Class mail, that would be a proper exercise of an assigned federal power in a modern context. There is a subtle but important semantic difference between the governmental power to provide a service to citizens vs. the citizen's right to that service. In this thread's context, it's akin to the obligation of the gov't to deliver mail to your door (or even just to a local Post Office), but there is nothing obligating the government to bring mail into your house and read it too you (or transport you to the Post Office to pick up a package).