3 ms·

You could take that argument as far as you'd like. He used oxygen to help him commit the crimes, thus we should take away his oxygen. No, the internet has dir

You could take that argument as far as you'd like. He used oxygen to help him commit the crimes, thus we should take away his oxygen. No, the internet has directly helped him commit crimes. It is a tool he used. As it is non-essential, and we may disagree on that point but the courts are agreeing with me, then it is logical to remove his privilege. I don't believe my rationale is asinine at all. I think you're equating this man's freedom with the protection of the internet itself, and are overstepping your position because of it.

Joakal 15y ago
The prosecution took it that far and the judge does not understand the implications of Internet as a necessity. I even highlighted that it restricts many needs to function as a member of society. The reality is that there are electronics that can easily tap into the World Wide Internet, which gives credence to my argument that his electricity should be shut off along with all electronics (may be battery powered) as part of the effort to prevent access to the Internet. The Internet did not help him commit crimes, it's a neutral platform. They are merely carriers just like roads, servers, etc. > I think you're equating this man's freedom with the protection of the internet itself, and are overstepping your position because of it. Nope, I'm talking specifically about the human right to the Internet due to the necessities, abundance of electronics with access to Internet, many potential outlets and most of all; unenforceable to prevent access. I think you're overstepping your position again by implicating me with other positions when I've been quite clear.
- SquareWheel 15y ago
  I don't think you have been that clear, but I don't want to see this discussion turn personal. I have nothing against you, and your opinion is just as valid as my own. On the question of if the internet is a human right, I think it's quite obvious the answer is no. It has never been viewed as one in the past as far as I know, I've yet to see a judge rule that to be the case. A better question is, should it be? I'd like to see that happen, though I think it will take time to get there.
  - Joakal 15y ago
    I apologise. I was explaining that I did not like being misrepresented by others. I would have been less defensive to a request to clarify my posts. As for it being a human right from precedent, it's already recognised in some European countries (some of it even includes minimal Internet transfer rates) and discussed at UN. Unfortunately for UN, I believe certain influences do not want it to happen, eg USA based on ACTA's proposal that had included demands for three strikes among other Internet access restrictions. There's a lot of information from this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_access https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_access and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Internet_access https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Internet_access No hard feelings, mate!
  - SquareWheel 15y ago
    No hard feelings here either. Have a good day, dear sir.

Joakal 15y ago

The prosecution took it that far and the judge does not understand the implications of Internet as a necessity. I even highlighted that it restricts many needs to function as a member of society. The reality is that there are electronics that can easily tap into the World Wide Internet, which gives credence to my argument that his electricity should be shut off along with all electronics (may be battery powered) as part of the effort to prevent access to the Internet. The Internet did not help him commit crimes, it's a neutral platform. They are merely carriers just like roads, servers, etc. > I think you're equating this man's freedom with the protection of the internet itself, and are overstepping your position because of it. Nope, I'm talking specifically about the human right to the Internet due to the necessities, abundance of electronics with access to Internet, many potential outlets and most of all; unenforceable to prevent access. I think you're overstepping your position again by implicating me with other positions when I've been quite clear.

SquareWheel 15y ago
I don't think you have been that clear, but I don't want to see this discussion turn personal. I have nothing against you, and your opinion is just as valid as my own. On the question of if the internet is a human right, I think it's quite obvious the answer is no. It has never been viewed as one in the past as far as I know, I've yet to see a judge rule that to be the case. A better question is, should it be? I'd like to see that happen, though I think it will take time to get there.
- Joakal 15y ago
  I apologise. I was explaining that I did not like being misrepresented by others. I would have been less defensive to a request to clarify my posts. As for it being a human right from precedent, it's already recognised in some European countries (some of it even includes minimal Internet transfer rates) and discussed at UN. Unfortunately for UN, I believe certain influences do not want it to happen, eg USA based on ACTA's proposal that had included demands for three strikes among other Internet access restrictions. There's a lot of information from this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_access https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_access and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Internet_access https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Internet_access No hard feelings, mate!
- SquareWheel 15y ago
  No hard feelings here either. Have a good day, dear sir.