• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Access to the internet - a fundamental right?

is access to the internet a fundamental right?


  • Total voters
    33
Rights vs. Privileges
Internet access is not a right!
Internet access is provided by the labor of others, thus you cannot have a right to it just like you do not have a right to your neighbor’s food just because you are hungry.

You have a right to trial by jury which is provided by the labor of others, as is national defence, police protection and a number of other things.
 
the only rights that should be fundamental is access to what is needed to survive, clean food, clean water and adequate shelter, anything else is a luxury, even if it is called a right on a piece of paper.
 
I believe that as technology advances and humanity takes advantage of those technologies, some of those technologies will be so important to living in a modern world that a people and their government can recognize such technologies as a fundamental right.

If Finland recognizes internet access as a fundamental right for their people, I have no problem with it.


You've got to cut that out, I'm not used to having to agree with you so often. :mrgreen:

My general response is "no". However... if/as/when it gets to the point where a certain technology is literall necessary to interact with society/government/economics in a manner most of the population consideres "essential", you might argue it is a right of some sort.

100 years ago a car wasn't necessary. Today, if you live in a city with adequate public transportation, it isn't necessary. If you live in a rural area and it is 10 or 20 miles to everything (including your job), a car is necessary.

Now I don't necessarily think that means the government should provide you with one, just that it should not capriciously deny you or make the ownership and use of a car overly onerous in such a case.

A similar case could be made for the internet, at least in the near future. Possibly even now; it is getting to the point where any business that isn't online might as well not exist, unless maybe it is the neighborhood corner store.

BUT then again I'm not really in favor of government providing charity, in the first place, so...
 
My first response is hell to da no. But then I got to thinking that if you have children in schools? Yes.

If you are an adult without kids? No take your broke ass down to the library to get online.

There is a part of me that thinks every home should have a computer and net access. So in other words? I do not know:)
 
As for a sub-division of this discussion:


Is access to LOLCATS a fundamental human right? Discuss.
 
As for a sub-division of this discussion:


Is access to LOLCATS a fundamental human right? Discuss.

of course, wat wood teh wurld be wifout lolcats?

lolcat-attack.png
 
In a "global economy" seems everyone should have access to the internet.
 
I am going to say "no" because the Internet is provided at some expense, and no fundamental right requires cash up front to exercise.

If you want to argue that a person who isn't a convict in prison should be able to have uncensored access to the Internet if he can pay for it, then fine, I'll go along with that. That'll piss off people in Germany, Canada, and China, and other barbaric places that don't guarantee the fundamental right of freedom of speech, but that's how it goes. Too bad for them.
 
A few months ago, Obama launched an initiative (I forget the name) to give all Americans access to broadband by 2020. While that seems like a ridiculously long time to me, I'm glad we are at least recognizing universal broadband as a worthy goal.

Nothing wrong with broadband.

Everyone who wants it and can afford to pay for it should be able to get it. Of course, if they live forty miles out of town that means they'll need to pay more for it than someone living in town, but their lifestyles choices aren't someone else's bill to pay, right?

And if they can't afford broadband, then they need to focus on getting a better paying job, which, again, isn't a problem anyone else has to be concerned with.

It's that simple.
 
Nothing wrong with broadband.

Everyone who wants it and can afford to pay for it should be able to get it. Of course, if they live forty miles out of town that means they'll need to pay more for it than someone living in town, but their lifestyles choices aren't someone else's bill to pay, right?

And if they can't afford broadband, then they need to focus on getting a better paying job, which, again, isn't a problem anyone else has to be concerned with.

It's that simple.

Absolutely. As far as I know, Obama's initiative is only concerned with implementing the infrastructure so that everyone can get broadband, rather than actually providing them with broadband. Sadly, there are still some places in the country where broadband isn't available at ANY price.
 
Fundamental rights are a fluid thing and they evolve and expand. Now I know this does not sit well with certain conservative minded folks, but that is never the less a fact. For example.

The right to free speech and vote in the US. Today American's take it for granted but it is not long ago that free speech and voting rights were denied to people of colour and before that, 50% of the population (women) and before that was only given too a select few (men of a certain age and stature).

Hence what has happened in Finland, a very very wired nation, is nothing more than an evolution of fundamental rights.

By this argument, you would then agree that the right to keep and bear arms is also a fundamental right.
Correct?
 
Is it just a general, universal, FUNDAMENTAL right? No

Is it a Fundamental Right of a particular nation? Perhaps, if they've added that right officially to their law

Should it be a Fundamental Right? I think of universal Fundamental Rights akin to natural rights, and as such no it shouldn't and really can't be. That said, I do think it should be a fundamental right of any nation whose vast majority of governmental processes are access through the internet. Other than that, I don't see any real reason to make it a "right".
 
Is it just a general, universal, FUNDAMENTAL right? No

Is it a Fundamental Right of a particular nation? Perhaps, if they've added that right officially to their law

Should it be a Fundamental Right? I think of universal Fundamental Rights akin to natural rights, and as such no it shouldn't and really can't be. That said, I do think it should be a fundamental right of any nation whose vast majority of governmental processes are access through the internet. Other than that, I don't see any real reason to make it a "right".

Funny thing about rights... they are freedoms you have that you can exercise without interfering with the rights of anyone else.

Thus, if someone else has to provide you the means to be able to do someting, then that someting isn't a right fundamental to you as a person or a citizen, its a privilege that you have been granted by the state.
 
Funny thing about rights... they are freedoms you have that you can exercise without interfering with the rights of anyone else.

Thus, if someone else has to provide you the means to be able to do someting, then that someting isn't a right fundamental to you as a person or a citizen, its a privilege that you have been granted by the state.

I think that can get shaky, as you have it phrased. You can excersise your rights because we have a legal system. My taxes go to pay for that legal system, so in some way I'm providing for your rights by making sure we have police and a military.
 
It's a right in this sense: The government needs a damn good reason to take it away from you.

There was a recent case here in PA where someone on probation who had been accused of sexually abusing a child was told, as part of her probation, that she could not use the internet and get online. She challenged that because it would severely limit her job opportunities and ability to get email and so on. Her lawyer argued that this would be like telling someone they can't use a library or the mail. Since her crime did not involve child pornography at all, the court ruled that such a limitation was improper as it had no relationship to her probation or crime.

So I'd say it's a "right" only in that the government should not be allowed to limit your access to it.
 
It's a right in this sense: The government needs a damn good reason to take it away from you.

There was a recent case here in PA where someone on probation who had been accused of sexually abusing a child was told, as part of her probation, that she could not use the internet and get online. She challenged that because it would severely limit her job opportunities and ability to get email and so on. Her lawyer argued that this would be like telling someone they can't use a library or the mail. Since her crime did not involve child pornography at all, the court ruled that such a limitation was improper as it had no relationship to her probation or crime.

So I'd say it's a "right" only in that the government should not be allowed to limit your access to it.
Without reason, that is.

For example, someone who was convicted of a major crime wherein their internet access played a key role - in such a case, severe restrictions on internet access for them (permanent or not, depending) would seem reasonable.
 
Without reason, that is.

For example, someone who was convicted of a major crime wherein their internet access played a key role - in such a case, severe restrictions on internet access for them (permanent or not, depending) would seem reasonable.

Yes, I agree. That's what the court said too. There has to be a reason, you can't just limit access as a punishment.
 
If it's not a right until the government passes a law and says it is, then what is it when the government passes another law taking it away?
 
If it's not a right until the government passes a law and says it is, then what is it when the government passes another law taking it away?
IMO, everything is a right until a law says it isn't.

Not the other way around.

Edit: The law we discuss here did not grant the right to internet access, it only stated that provisions must be made so that everyone could exercise that right if they so wished.

OR I assume so, having not actually read it.
 
Last edited:
In some ways it is people are at a massive disadvantage if they arent online.
 
IMO, everything is a right until a law says it isn't.

Not the other way around.

Edit: The law we discuss here did not grant the right to internet access, it only stated that provisions must be made so that everyone could exercise that right if they so wished.

OR I assume so, having not actually read it.

My point is if the government decides whether you can have it or not, then it's not a right. If the government can give it by passing a law, then they can easily take it away by passing another law.
 
My point is if the government decides whether you can have it or not, then it's not a right. If the government can give it by passing a law, then they can easily take it away by passing another law.
That's partially true.

Depending on how strongly protections agaisnt such a change become, and how popular the "right" is, it might be less likely to happen - or at least, happen without major side-effects.

And I agree, this is not a right.

It's a privilage.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom