- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 72,141
- Reaction score
- 58,881
- Location
- NE Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
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.
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.
As for a sub-division of this discussion:
Is access to LOLCATS a fundamental human right? Discuss.
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.
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.
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.
Without reason, that is.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.
IMO, everything is a right until a law says it isn't.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?
Pursuant to this story:
BBC News - Finland makes broadband a 'legal right'
From the story:
So, is access to the internet a fundamental right?
Please explain your response.
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.
That's partially true.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?