Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Internet access is now a basic human right (2016)

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 167 posts

Re: Internet access is now a basic human right (2016)

#121

Post by nemo44x »

AmIFirstToThink wrote: post #115
nemo44x wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No offense taken but I'm not sure why my statement provoked a response like yours. I stated that the people delegate these types of decision to elected officials. Their job is to protect the people. If, in some instance, they judged that a protest was in danger of harming the people and cutting cellular spectrum to that protest was the most effective method which could immediately relieve that danger, they could and…

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/25/non-english-speak... http://www.inquisitr.com/3428608/london-mayor-sadiq-khan-to-... That's what effective method rational has resulted into. I would rather have them go by the book, than what they imagine to be effective.

The UK has a very different view of what "free speech" is. In effect the UK does not have free speech. This would be unconstitutional in the USA.

As for the first link, although it's absolutely crazy (especially considering that the "less vulnerable" people likely subsidize most of the police force) we do live in a society and someone has to make the decisions. These people are elected or appointed by the elected. If we don't like it we can protest and run another candidate and elect them.

It honestly sounds like pragmatism from a police force that has been decimated by budget cuts made by elected representatives whose electorate simply doesn't want to pay the taxes required to fully fund a police force that can service everyone. You can't have it both ways. If it bothers you then vote for someone who says they will increase the budget by other cutting programs you don't value as much or by raising taxes.

Take action through the democratic process to invoke the change you'd like to see and shape the world. The people passing policy you don't like certainly have and are the authority precisely because they have. But there's nothing stopping you.

Re: Internet access is now a basic human right (2016)

#122

Post by AmIFirstToThink »

msla wrote: post #108
AmIFirstToThink wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about private corporation that provide platforms for modern day public discourse enforcing their own blasphemy laws?

What about them? The US Constitution only binds on the Federal government and, through the process of incorporation, state (and, therefore, county and local) governments. Private entities can do what they want. In a more normative sense (that is, describing what should be as opposed to simply what is ), private entities should be able to enforce their own rules, there shouldn't be any limits to how many private entit…

>Private entities can do what they want.

The baker should be able to deny baking a cake to gay couple?

A pharmacist should be able to deny knowing options about birth control based on religious rights?

A hospital should be able to deny removal of life sustaining device when I don't want it anymore?

>Private entities can do what they want.

Is there a difference between a private entity and a public corporation?

If I run my own plumbing company, I can hire my son without putting up an ad in the paper. Should a Google executive be allowed to hire her husband without putting up an ad?

We hold public companies at a higher standard that private individuals, correctly so.

What if Mead stopped you from using their notebook to write down a thought that they don't agree with?

Re: Internet access is now a basic human right (2016)

#123

Post by ThrustVectoring »

nemo44x wrote: post #112
ThrustVectoring wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Their job is to protect the people" is a recent and paternalistic innovation. Better, IMO, is to write and uphold a set of laws that provide the best framework for human flourishing. This means deliberately not protecting people from certain risks, where the costs in terms of other values outweighs the benefits of risk reduction. Like, the US would be safer if we confiscated every gun and made gun ownership illegal.…

I mean that in an immediate threat sort of way. For instance, if someone robbing a bank it's the governments job to protect the citizens by apprehending the suspect. It's not the citizens job to protect themselves from immediate danger. Flooding in Houston - it is the governments job to help people to safety. It isn't their job to buy them a new home if they didn't purchase insurance.

This sounds to me a lot like abdicating personal responsibility for physical safety to governmental organizations. Like, it's absolutely your job to protect yourself from immediate physical danger. Protecting others is supererogatory.

Re: Internet access is now a basic human right (2016)

#124

Post by AmIFirstToThink »

lukas099 wrote: post #88
AmIFirstToThink wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Freedom of Speech means freedom from State prevention of speech. It doesn't mean e.g. that my friend can't kick me out of his house for spouting white separatist hate speech in his living room. Google/Twitter/Facebook/Reddit are private entities that own their platforms and can enforce rules there.

>private entities that own their platforms and can enforce rules there.

There are private entities, public corporations and government.

We hold government to highest standard of equality, we give private entities most freedom to discriminate. Public corporation with share holders are held somewhere in between.

Your friend can kick a person spouting white separatist views out of his room. Good call, in my opinion, by your friend.

Should Mead, makers of paper notebooks, have a right to see what someone has writing in a notebook and take away the notebook if they don't like what's being written?

Re: Internet access is now a basic human right (2016)

#125

Post by wu-ikkyu »

ithilglin909 wrote: post #110
dragonwriter wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It actually is; freedom of the press is the exact same thing as freedom of speech applied to printed matter (it is called out distinctly because historical unwelcome written material, especially when mass distributed as the printing press enabled, was frequently considered more problematic by government and so printing was often tightly regulated even where speech, per se, was less so.) It is not, despite a fairly po…

I agree that the idea of the "freedom the of the press" is derived from the right to free speech. But "press" as in a printing press is a machine, while "press" as in "freedom of the press" refers to people who work for news media or news media collectively. Those are not the same thing, regardless of what wu-ikkyu thinks.

The printing press was the only form of news media in existence in 1789, hence why it was more commonly called "the press" back then, rather than "the media" as it is today.

It was only later in the 1900's that the definition of "the press" was extended by the courts to cover new media like the radio

https://www.livescience.com/21312-freedom-of-the-press.html

Re: Internet access is now a basic human right (2016)

#126

Post by burkaman »

AmIFirstToThink wrote: post #104
a_diplomat wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Freedom of speech is, as you can read in the link I provided, one of several rights, not the only right.

How do you reconcile Freedom of Speech allowed and “defamation of religion” not being allowed?

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/16sessio...

This is a resolution passed by the Human Rights Council, but it is not a human right. It does not disallow anything. It talks about promoting and encouraging respect, deploring discrimination and violence, noting concern, recognizing contributions, etc. These are all soft, non-binding commitments.

The only actual obligation is "to prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion or belief and to implement measures to guarantee the equal and effective protection of the law", which does not conflict at all with freedom of speech.

It also includes "the positive role that the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the full respect for the freedom to seek, receive and impart information can play in strengthening democracy and combating religious intolerance", which seems to address your concerns.

Re: Internet access is now a basic human right (2016)

#127

Post by msla »

AmIFirstToThink wrote: post #122
msla wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about them? The US Constitution only binds on the Federal government and, through the process of incorporation, state (and, therefore, county and local) governments. Private entities can do what they want. In a more normative sense (that is, describing what should be as opposed to simply what is ), private entities should be able to enforce their own rules, there shouldn't be any limits to how many private entit…

>Private entities can do what they want. The baker should be able to deny baking a cake to gay couple? A pharmacist should be able to deny knowing options about birth control based on religious rights? A hospital should be able to deny removal of life sustaining device when I don't want it anymore? >Private entities can do what they want. Is there a difference between a private entity and a public corporation? If I r…

> The baker should be able to deny baking a cake to gay couple?

Protected class.

> A pharmacist should be able to deny knowing options about birth control based on religious rights?

> A hospital should be able to deny removal of life sustaining device when I don't want it anymore?

You want to get into the special laws and regulations the medical field operates under? Really? Really? Because I can guarantee you don't. I can guarantee you are not qualified to do that, and do not have the patience to even start.

Leave it alone. It is its own world and always has been.

> What if Mead stopped you from using their notebook to write down a thought that they don't agree with?

It's more useful to have competition than regulation, because regulation can be gamed. Regulation is required when competition is not possible, does not happen, or when the potential for harm is so high that we cannot simply trust to competition, as in the medical field.

Re: Internet access is now a basic human right (2016)

#128

Post by AmIFirstToThink »

burkaman wrote: post #116
AmIFirstToThink wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A UN diplomat who is negotiating laws. Am I wrong?

I don't know, but negotiating laws and charging corporations are very different things.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15133942

The person said that she/he was a Diplomat who negotiated this law.

>negotiating laws and charging corporations are very different things.

I agree. UN is toothless in enforcing anything, it is just grandstanding anyway. That was the point of my question, when do they propose on doing something about the corporations who invalidate the rights to speech. To show just that.

Re: Internet access is now a basic human right (2016)

#129

Post by dragonwriter »

ithilglin909 wrote: post #110
dragonwriter wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It actually is; freedom of the press is the exact same thing as freedom of speech applied to printed matter (it is called out distinctly because historical unwelcome written material, especially when mass distributed as the printing press enabled, was frequently considered more problematic by government and so printing was often tightly regulated even where speech, per se, was less so.) It is not, despite a fairly po…

I agree that the idea of the "freedom the of the press" is derived from the right to free speech. But "press" as in a printing press is a machine, while "press" as in "freedom of the press" refers to people who work for news media or news media collectively. Those are not the same thing, regardless of what wu-ikkyu thinks.

No, again, it's the actual machine. Historically, printing and publication were regulated (often with licensing requirements to even set one up) over and above speech [0], so “freedom of speech” did not adequately communicate the right to use a printing press to prepare ideas for distribution.

“The press” in “freedom of the press” is, literally, the printing press (and, by implication, it's necessary paraphernalia, including paper for printing, type, etc.), not the news media or the people working in it.

[0] e.g., https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensing_of_the_Press_Act_1...

Re: Internet access is now a basic human right (2016)

#130

Post by nemo44x »

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #123
nemo44x wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean that in an immediate threat sort of way. For instance, if someone robbing a bank it's the governments job to protect the citizens by apprehending the suspect. It's not the citizens job to protect themselves from immediate danger. Flooding in Houston - it is the governments job to help people to safety. It isn't their job to buy them a new home if they didn't purchase insurance.

This sounds to me a lot like abdicating personal responsibility for physical safety to governmental organizations. Like, it's absolutely your job to protect yourself from immediate physical danger. Protecting others is supererogatory.

You're parsing now. Protecting yourself from an immediate threat is of course your responsibility. However, the government can hold the person liable for any harm they caused you. So immediate is a poor word as it can be easily misinterpreted and that's my fault.

What I mean for example is it's not the citizens role to form a mob and hunt down a suspected criminal. That's the governments role.

Post reply on HN