4 ms·
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
by 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 agoI 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 agoAnd does this prevent that? China and Iran signed on as well.
- _delirium 14y agoIn 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.
- saraid216 14y agoOne of the problems of "freedom of speech" is that many people have bundled a lot of concepts into "speech". There are a great many Internet activities that would be difficult to capture as speech. Reading a political screed, for instance, is not speech. It is probably protected in some other way, but I'm actually unaware of how. (Actually, considering workplace laws, I begin to suspect it's not protected.) Differently, is clicking a Like button considered speech? What about Unliking? How about transferring a file, or maintaining a personal wiki that no one else has access to? These aren't questions I want answered anytime soon. I'd rather leave them alone and simply say that people should have the opportunity to engage in these activities, full stop, without having to figure out whether or not they're speech.
- kevinpet 14y agoThat's not what someone means when they say "every child has a right to an education". They do not mean "the government cannot prevent you from getting an education". They mean "the government must provide you with an education". No one has a right to travel. It's actually phrased as the right to freedom of movement, which is a good confusing phrase because it prevents you from thinking you already know what it means. You have (in a free country) the right to go where you want. You don't have the right to a plane ticket. Positive rights are dangerous. Positive rights inherently impose obligations on someone. They should be phrased that way to begin with. I can rationally discuss the idea of "education is an obligation of government" because it means what it says. If I dare say "children don't have a right to an education" I'll get lynched.
- saraid216 14y agoI'm okay with saying that it's an obligation.
- baddox 14y agoAnother example is "the right to health care." People don't use that to mean that you have the right to pay thousands of dollars for an MRI. They generally mean the government should provide health care.
- gsmaverick 14y agoWell then they are using the word `right` incorrectly.