3 ms·

I am not sure I follow your analogy. I think the key distinction here is that you are not being convicted of a crime prior to having your rights taken away. In

I am not sure I follow your analogy. I think the key distinction here is that you are not being convicted of a crime prior to having your rights taken away. In the US, this would be analogous to losing the franchise, e.g., without being convicted of a crime. It is unclear to me that a similar bill that included an actual prosecution would be struck down on the same basis. To be honest your comment really rubbed me the wrong way because I believe it insinuates a degree of bad faith on the part of the decision makers that I feel is unwarranted. I don't really mean to say that every discussion is equally valuable, but rather that it serves no larger good to dismiss the conversations out of hand. If that wasn't your intention, I apologize. [edit: removed "not" from "it is not unclear" to me. whoops!]

pixcavator 17y ago
How about this analogy: taking away your driving license? UPDATE: Just like using a bus instead of a car, you can access the internet from a library.
- smhinsey 17y ago
  A driver's license is a privilege, at least in the US, whereas speech is a right. I don't know if things are different in the EU/France.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
byrneseyeview 17y ago
it serves no larger good to dismiss the conversations out of hand. Read any newspaper from more than a few years ago, and I think you'll see that most of it is quite trivial. And yet, that was the content judged newsworthy! I think it's clear that people vastly overestimate the importance of their own words and opinions. The person who decided that there is a "right" to Internet access has a similarly worthless opinion. I think Internet access is important, but creating new rights is an extremely bad idea. Every time you add another absolute, you create more cases that your rights-system can't cover.
- smhinsey 17y ago
  I can't argue that most newspapers and the media in general are pretty weak these days, and I work for one of them. I don't think this is about creating a new right to internet access, per se, instead, I think that the point is being made that the right to free speech extends across multiple mediums, not just the press. In other words, the government cannot interfere with your right to publish a newspaper, and similarly it can't interfere with your right to publish on the internet. In a sense, this is a question of due process. Note that I am not advocating the position that there should be no way for the government to sever your connection or that there should be any obligation for it to be provided. The government does not provide printing presses, either. If you commit a crime and are convicted of it, you can have your right to internet access terminated in the same way in the US you'd lose the right to bear arms or vote. That you say this is a worthless opinion doesn't really help your position. Ad hominem argumentation does no one any good. I see this situation as being similar to what happens in the US when legislation is overturned by the Supreme Court on constitutional grounds. You have the opportunity to go back and make the legislation compliant. It sounds like that could be done in this case.

pixcavator 17y ago

How about this analogy: taking away your driving license? UPDATE: Just like using a bus instead of a car, you can access the internet from a library.

smhinsey 17y ago
A driver's license is a privilege, at least in the US, whereas speech is a right. I don't know if things are different in the EU/France.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

byrneseyeview 17y ago

it serves no larger good to dismiss the conversations out of hand. Read any newspaper from more than a few years ago, and I think you'll see that most of it is quite trivial. And yet, that was the content judged newsworthy! I think it's clear that people vastly overestimate the importance of their own words and opinions. The person who decided that there is a "right" to Internet access has a similarly worthless opinion. I think Internet access is important, but creating new rights is an extremely bad idea. Every time you add another absolute, you create more cases that your rights-system can't cover.

smhinsey 17y ago
I can't argue that most newspapers and the media in general are pretty weak these days, and I work for one of them. I don't think this is about creating a new right to internet access, per se, instead, I think that the point is being made that the right to free speech extends across multiple mediums, not just the press. In other words, the government cannot interfere with your right to publish a newspaper, and similarly it can't interfere with your right to publish on the internet. In a sense, this is a question of due process. Note that I am not advocating the position that there should be no way for the government to sever your connection or that there should be any obligation for it to be provided. The government does not provide printing presses, either. If you commit a crime and are convicted of it, you can have your right to internet access terminated in the same way in the US you'd lose the right to bear arms or vote. That you say this is a worthless opinion doesn't really help your position. Ad hominem argumentation does no one any good. I see this situation as being similar to what happens in the US when legislation is overturned by the Supreme Court on constitutional grounds. You have the opportunity to go back and make the legislation compliant. It sounds like that could be done in this case.