81–90 of 167 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1) That would be a question for US courts, as all those companies are based in the us. 2) Yes. 3) Yes.
> 3) Yes https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/un-adopts-religious-int... How should I trust your words now?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no such thing as a natural right. You don't have a natural right to life, just head out into the wilderness and see how much nature cares about your natural right to become certain of that. All rights are social covenants provided by fellow humans.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=natural+rights
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't have a right as an individual to force another individual to give you material goods. You do have a right to food, shelter, and physical security, and if you don't have those, then yes, your rights are being violated and the government is failing in it's responsibilities.
I guess we disagree on fundamental principals. Governments require humans to exist. Humans do not require governments to exist. Rights exist for humans regardless of whether or not they are being governed (or in spite of being governed!).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're just being pedantic about what the word right should mean; it's silly. Rights are whatever society agrees them to be, that's it. It's an ever changing mutable list of what people agree to respect, nothing more and nothing less.
Don't say that like it's some long running historical understanding of what the word "right" means. If that is now the definition, it's a new definition much more ambiguous than the old. A right used to mean something that was passed to you by 'your creator' because of your humanity. A right wasn't something someone else could provide, it was only something we could all defend. Life, liberty, property. Not the work o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree. The spectrum is owned by the public which is managed by an elected government of the people. If a protest were to be judged by elected officials, or those appointed by them, to be in danger of harming citizens then taking actions like blocking access to the wireless spectrum for communication and organization purposes would be within the public good. I should think they would explain why this decision was…
Public squares are also owned by the public and managed by the government. Does that mean the government should be able to pick and choose which viewpoints are valid enough to use the public square, for the sake of the public good?
I don't think internet access is a human right, a simple test is if the internet goes down are my rights being violated? Can you really put this in the same category as the right to pursue happiness or health? or the right to defend yourself? Classifying everything as a right is super fun and feels important but it actually takes away from the actual human rights. Health care is another example - do you have the righ…
This is a bad argument, because it ignores the vector of the rights removal, and that matters in this debate.
For example, if a tree falls on you in a storm while you are writing an anti-government book and you die are your rights being violated? Obviously not. However if THE GOVERNMENT™ comes in and kills you for speaking against them then yes your rights are being violated.
Your example would be better served to say: A simple test, if the government shuts your internet down for [reasons] are your rights being violated? Not as simple of an answer.
I disagree that the internet is a basic right, but don't think that's the best argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Public squares are also owned by the public and managed by the government. Does that mean the government should be able to pick and choose which viewpoints are valid enough to use the public square, for the sake of the public good?
They already do. You are given a permit and if it's judged to be out of hand and a threat to the public then they can and do force the crowd to disperse. This happens all the time.
Your comments seem to be advocating for democratic totalitarianism, which is directly opposed the concept of individual rights.
I negotiated this resolution on behalf of a UN government. The title is very misleading. The resolution states that human rights are applicable on the internet, not that access to the internet is a human right.
Cool When are you going to charge Google/Twitter/Facebook/Reddit for banning speech that they don't like on the Internet? Is Free Speech a human right according to UN? Is criticism of religion, or ideology, included in that right?
Google/Twitter/Facebook/Reddit are private entities that own their platforms and can enforce rules there.
Well, I guess I shouldn’t have to pay for it then. Seriously, can we start being a little more sparing in the use of the word “right”? What was once a strong word is quickly becoming meaningless political jargon.
"Freedom of the press" doesn't mean you don't have to pay for printing presses
I don't think internet access is a human right, a simple test is if the internet goes down are my rights being violated? Can you really put this in the same category as the right to pursue happiness or health? or the right to defend yourself? Classifying everything as a right is super fun and feels important but it actually takes away from the actual human rights. Health care is another example - do you have the righ…
It is, in some countries. People are forgetting that human rights is just a law. Human rights are different in different countries and times. It's just a set of (very vague) rules a bunch of people agreed on, nothing more.