7 ms·

The concept of "rights" is growing less useful, I fear.

qq66 14y ago
The resolution doesn't seem to say "Everyone should get free Internet." It says something to the effect of "Restricting people's online expression is a violation of their rights," condemning what Syria or Egypt's governments did when they shut down Internet to prevent citizens from coordinating revolutionary activities.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- kiba 14y ago
  They might as well just say "freedom of expression".
  - dllthomas 14y ago
    I'm not sure that protection an individuals freedom to express themselves necessarily entails protection of the transport of encodings of that expression - I would rather see that latter protection made explicit.
  - mkaltenecker 14y ago
    What’s so bad about clarifying that that includes the internet? I mean, there are politicians in democratic states who believe that protections afforded to the press on the basis of rights don’t apply to, for example bloggers. It’s not altogether obvious why freedom of expression or speech should automatically include the internet.
- smsm42 14y ago
  Are they going to issue press-release on every possible form of expression? That'd take a while, but then again - generating headlines is their business, so it's a win-win.
  - sirclueless 14y ago
    The slippery slope argument is a straw man. The primary diplomatic function of the U.N. is laying down specific guidelines for international conduct, so that there's no more arguing about what constitutes a violation of a specific treaty. For example, suppose Ukrageria says, "But Zimbraqistan stationed 14 battleships outside of our port, that's an act of war," and Zimbraqistan counters, "But we just want them to lift the 200% tariff on Zimbraqistanian goods." The U.N. has specifically said that free access to ports is a sovereign right, so that resolves this dispute and gives Ukrageria international support for a declaration of war against Zimbraqistan. Similarly, some countries have criticized Egypt for disconnecting its citizens from the global internet. Egypt in turn counters that their citizens still can express their opinions and speak freely so it's not a human rights violation. The purpose of the U.N.'s resolution is to resolve this dispute and clarify that freedom of expression must include international communication over the internet.
    - smsm42 14y ago
      Right, before they did it everybody thought "freedom of speech" meant only that you can use your actual voice freely. But now everybody knows you can also use Twitter! So what about using printed media? Radiowaves? Phone communications? Should we wait for UN to explain us about that too? For anybody seriously considering the question it mus be obvios the question is not in the means of expression and freedom of speech was never meant to be restricted to exercising one's vocal cords.
tikhonj 14y ago
No it isn't. The point isn't that you should get free internet--the point is that a government should not prevent you from freely using the internet. This is no different from a right to, say, travel. The internet is particularly important because it is very good for getting a message out to the world at large. Other existing channels tend to be more difficult to use or more limited. The internet lets people document current events first-hand without having to rely on reporters or news organizations. So there are definitely some completely rational and practical reasons to declare internet access an international right, at the very least as a check against oppressive government.
- spindritf 14y ago
  > The point isn't that you should get free internet--the point is that a government should not prevent you from freely using the internet. Isn't that already covered under freedom of speech?
  - roryokane 14y ago
    I don’t think so. With only freedom of speech, the government could still ban access to all foreign-country-hosted read-only sites – sites without commenting or other interactivity. That would include many informational sites and blogs.
    - SoftwareMaven 14y ago
      And does this prevent that? China and Iran signed on as well.
      - _delirium 14y ago
        In practice, no, because UN resolutions are only as good as their ability to enforce them, which in the case of general-assembly resolutions basically boils down to no ability, except attempting to shame people who flaunt them. Only a handful of UN organs (e.g. the Security Council and the International Criminal Court) have anything approaching teeth.
taylorbuley 14y ago
One distinction philosophers make is "positive" (freedom of) vs. "negative" (freedom from) liberty. If you take this as the former, then perhaps I agree. But I suspect this was intended to be the latter -- i.e. freedom from ignorance.
mthreat 14y ago
As someone who was once banned from the Internet by the US gov't[1], I actually agree with you. People throw around terms like "human right" without knowing what it means. If access to the Internet is a human right, that means every human in the world should be able to demand access to the Internet? I think the Internet absolutely should receive First Amendment protection in the US (and the US Supreme Court agrees), but calling it a human right doesn't seem to agree with the definition[2]. I'd love to hear arguments for the other side. Note that this doesn't mean I think governments should be able to actively deny individuals access to the Internet, but a Constitutional right is not the same as a human right. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Lamprecht http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Lamprecht [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights
- mthreat 14y ago
  Another point - people in prison still deserve "human rights", even though they've lost their right to freedom. This implies that even freedom isn't a human right. Of course, you could argue that this leads to a contradiction about taking away one's freedom, but that's another discussion.
  - zcid 14y ago
    Via the social contract, by infringing on the rights of another, one volunteers to temporarily suspend the right to freedom. A right cannot be taken away or lost as they are inherent to the human condition.
    - noblethrasher 14y ago
      Actually, a problem with Social Contract theory is that it can't deal with free-riders. If you never agreed to the contract then you can't be obligated to its terms. So you can infringe on the rights of people who did ascent to the terms of the contract without being obligated to submit to any punishment.
      - deleted 14y ago
jsnk 14y ago
This is actually an area for a long-lasting philosophical debate. Here's is a paper by Isaiah Berlin [1] on the debate over positive and negative liberty. >The first of these political senses of freedom or liberty (I shall use both words to mean the same), which (following much precedent) I shall call the ‘negative’ sense, is involved in the answer to the question ‘What is the area within which the subject – a person or group of persons – is or should be left to do or be what he is able to do or be, without interference by other persons?’ The second, which I shall call the positive sense, is involved in the answer to the question ‘What, or who, is the source of control or interference, that can determine someone to do, or be, one thing rather than another?’ The two questions are clearly different, even though the answers to them may overlap. [1] http://www1.nsd131.org/classpages/bwilliamson/Shared%20Documents/Two%20Concepts%20of%20Liberty%20Berlin.pdf http://www1.nsd131.org/classpages/bwilliamson/Shared%20Docum...
- scarmig 14y ago
  Some other philosophers question whether there's even a meaningful difference between positive and negative rights. Those critiques go beyond a mere, "well, it's meaningless for the rich and the poor to have equal rights to use any printing presses they own." What is one of the main arguments against that distinction? Well, consider: many people here are arguing that the Internet isn't a right because someone has to provide or pay for it. In some sense, it's not a "natural" right in the same way that they perceive, say, property rights to be. But when you say you have property rights, you're not just saying that the government won't come and take your stuff. You're saying that the government has a positive obligation to send violent thugs in uniform to protect a monopoly, of use and transfer, over a physical object that it has recognized for you. (After all, otherwise a right to private property would be meaningless.) That leads the people making the initial positive/negative distinction into an intellectual trap: all of a sudden, their negative liberty has shown its true colors. It requires as much government involvement as, say, the universal provision of healthcare service. Or the Internet! Even freedom of speech requires government action to uphold: it's pretty meaningless to have freedom of speech if the government won't back up its guarantee of force on individuals who would harm you for saying something.

qq66 14y ago

The resolution doesn't seem to say "Everyone should get free Internet." It says something to the effect of "Restricting people's online expression is a violation of their rights," condemning what Syria or Egypt's governments did when they shut down Internet to prevent citizens from coordinating revolutionary activities.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
kiba 14y ago
They might as well just say "freedom of expression".
- dllthomas 14y ago
  I'm not sure that protection an individuals freedom to express themselves necessarily entails protection of the transport of encodings of that expression - I would rather see that latter protection made explicit.
- mkaltenecker 14y ago
  What’s so bad about clarifying that that includes the internet? I mean, there are politicians in democratic states who believe that protections afforded to the press on the basis of rights don’t apply to, for example bloggers. It’s not altogether obvious why freedom of expression or speech should automatically include the internet.
smsm42 14y ago
Are they going to issue press-release on every possible form of expression? That'd take a while, but then again - generating headlines is their business, so it's a win-win.
- sirclueless 14y ago
  The slippery slope argument is a straw man. The primary diplomatic function of the U.N. is laying down specific guidelines for international conduct, so that there's no more arguing about what constitutes a violation of a specific treaty. For example, suppose Ukrageria says, "But Zimbraqistan stationed 14 battleships outside of our port, that's an act of war," and Zimbraqistan counters, "But we just want them to lift the 200% tariff on Zimbraqistanian goods." The U.N. has specifically said that free access to ports is a sovereign right, so that resolves this dispute and gives Ukrageria international support for a declaration of war against Zimbraqistan. Similarly, some countries have criticized Egypt for disconnecting its citizens from the global internet. Egypt in turn counters that their citizens still can express their opinions and speak freely so it's not a human rights violation. The purpose of the U.N.'s resolution is to resolve this dispute and clarify that freedom of expression must include international communication over the internet.
  - smsm42 14y ago
    Right, before they did it everybody thought "freedom of speech" meant only that you can use your actual voice freely. But now everybody knows you can also use Twitter! So what about using printed media? Radiowaves? Phone communications? Should we wait for UN to explain us about that too? For anybody seriously considering the question it mus be obvios the question is not in the means of expression and freedom of speech was never meant to be restricted to exercising one's vocal cords.

tikhonj 14y ago

No it isn't. The point isn't that you should get free internet--the point is that a government should not prevent you from freely using the internet. This is no different from a right to, say, travel. The internet is particularly important because it is very good for getting a message out to the world at large. Other existing channels tend to be more difficult to use or more limited. The internet lets people document current events first-hand without having to rely on reporters or news organizations. So there are definitely some completely rational and practical reasons to declare internet access an international right, at the very least as a check against oppressive government.

spindritf 14y ago
> The point isn't that you should get free internet--the point is that a government should not prevent you from freely using the internet. Isn't that already covered under freedom of speech?
- roryokane 14y ago
  I don’t think so. With only freedom of speech, the government could still ban access to all foreign-country-hosted read-only sites – sites without commenting or other interactivity. That would include many informational sites and blogs.
  - SoftwareMaven 14y ago
    And does this prevent that? China and Iran signed on as well.
    - _delirium 14y ago
      In practice, no, because UN resolutions are only as good as their ability to enforce them, which in the case of general-assembly resolutions basically boils down to no ability, except attempting to shame people who flaunt them. Only a handful of UN organs (e.g. the Security Council and the International Criminal Court) have anything approaching teeth.

taylorbuley 14y ago

One distinction philosophers make is "positive" (freedom of) vs. "negative" (freedom from) liberty. If you take this as the former, then perhaps I agree. But I suspect this was intended to be the latter -- i.e. freedom from ignorance.

mthreat 14y ago

As someone who was once banned from the Internet by the US gov't[1], I actually agree with you. People throw around terms like "human right" without knowing what it means. If access to the Internet is a human right, that means every human in the world should be able to demand access to the Internet? I think the Internet absolutely should receive First Amendment protection in the US (and the US Supreme Court agrees), but calling it a human right doesn't seem to agree with the definition[2]. I'd love to hear arguments for the other side. Note that this doesn't mean I think governments should be able to actively deny individuals access to the Internet, but a Constitutional right is not the same as a human right. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Lamprecht http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Lamprecht [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights

mthreat 14y ago
Another point - people in prison still deserve "human rights", even though they've lost their right to freedom. This implies that even freedom isn't a human right. Of course, you could argue that this leads to a contradiction about taking away one's freedom, but that's another discussion.
- zcid 14y ago
  Via the social contract, by infringing on the rights of another, one volunteers to temporarily suspend the right to freedom. A right cannot be taken away or lost as they are inherent to the human condition.
  - noblethrasher 14y ago
    Actually, a problem with Social Contract theory is that it can't deal with free-riders. If you never agreed to the contract then you can't be obligated to its terms. So you can infringe on the rights of people who did ascent to the terms of the contract without being obligated to submit to any punishment.
    - deleted 14y ago

jsnk 14y ago

This is actually an area for a long-lasting philosophical debate. Here's is a paper by Isaiah Berlin [1] on the debate over positive and negative liberty. >The first of these political senses of freedom or liberty (I shall use both words to mean the same), which (following much precedent) I shall call the ‘negative’ sense, is involved in the answer to the question ‘What is the area within which the subject – a person or group of persons – is or should be left to do or be what he is able to do or be, without interference by other persons?’ The second, which I shall call the positive sense, is involved in the answer to the question ‘What, or who, is the source of control or interference, that can determine someone to do, or be, one thing rather than another?’ The two questions are clearly different, even though the answers to them may overlap. [1] http://www1.nsd131.org/classpages/bwilliamson/Shared%20Documents/Two%20Concepts%20of%20Liberty%20Berlin.pdf http://www1.nsd131.org/classpages/bwilliamson/Shared%20Docum...

scarmig 14y ago
Some other philosophers question whether there's even a meaningful difference between positive and negative rights. Those critiques go beyond a mere, "well, it's meaningless for the rich and the poor to have equal rights to use any printing presses they own." What is one of the main arguments against that distinction? Well, consider: many people here are arguing that the Internet isn't a right because someone has to provide or pay for it. In some sense, it's not a "natural" right in the same way that they perceive, say, property rights to be. But when you say you have property rights, you're not just saying that the government won't come and take your stuff. You're saying that the government has a positive obligation to send violent thugs in uniform to protect a monopoly, of use and transfer, over a physical object that it has recognized for you. (After all, otherwise a right to private property would be meaningless.) That leads the people making the initial positive/negative distinction into an intellectual trap: all of a sudden, their negative liberty has shown its true colors. It requires as much government involvement as, say, the universal provision of healthcare service. Or the Internet! Even freedom of speech requires government action to uphold: it's pretty meaningless to have freedom of speech if the government won't back up its guarantee of force on individuals who would harm you for saying something.