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

151–160 of 167 posts

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

#151

Post by scarmig »

nemo44x wrote: post #85
scarmig wrote: post #56

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.

That's policing actions, not the content of the messaging. Obviously setting fire in a movie theater is something policed, because it's not a purely communicative action.

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

#152

Post by vilmosi »

lolsal wrote: post #69
scarmig wrote: post #45

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!).

>>> Rights exist for humans regardless of whether or not they are being governed

I don't know, I mean rights as we know it didn't exist until relatively recently when they were recognised and enforced by governments.

I don't see how "free speech" can exist without something protecting that right. Yes, I know, technically the person shutting you up is technically violating your right. But without an objective arbiter such as society, they were just exercising their right to shut you up, which, in their view, is their god given right, who's to say.

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

#153

Post by vilmosi »

gipp wrote: post #10
ygra wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Should those people work for free so that a poor persons rights are not violated? Just because something is a human right, doesn't mean society (or whoever else) has to provide that for free.

The point is that _rights_ ought to be things that, in the absence of a society, you already _have_. (Life, liberty, right to property, etc) They are things that a just society is obligated to not take _away_ from you. Things that a just and wealthy society should be able to provide _for_ its citizens (health care, economic security, etc), are laudable and highly important goals. They are not rights though -- not bec…

How would you have a right to property without society?

Property, like money and other social constructs, require a society to recognise it. You can't "own" anything of other people don't recognise the fact that you own it. Which means you need society to govern who owns what.

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

#154

Post by threatofrain »

bischofs wrote: post #2

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…

From the perspective that there's some nature-given right inside of you that gives you the "right" to pursue life, liberty, and happiness, then there's no argument to be had. An axiomatic assumption has already been made on the innate dignity and moral quality of all humans.

From the perspective that rights are a legal device that people or governments create (and enforce) in order to achieve broad social or government aims in the form of a citizen's baseline, then internet as a right should be on the table for discussion. It should be noted that rights as a legal device and rights as an innate moral assumption are not contradictory.

I do believe that internet will become increasingly related to a person's ability to communicate, summon vehicles, find out and talk about government and politics, organize and find human meetings, use maps, utilize business services, or coordinate emergency information.

Without internet, a person can still do these things, but I think there's a general drop in quality of reach and capability. I think there's also a discussion to be had about whether a citizen baseline of internet access means a more prosperous or robust nation.

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

#155

Post by nemo44x »

mindslight wrote: post #147
nemo44x wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You sound like an anarchist. If you want to organize a group of people to use a public facility you need to request a permit. This is so that proper actions can be taken to make the event safe and to ensure that others have not planned access to that resource for that day. The state can not refuse to give a permit because of the content of the protest or organization - that would be a rights violation. However, if th…

Any advocating for distributed power is going to sound like "anarchy" to someone thinking in a centralized paradigm. But despite our tendency to explain things by creating singular narratives, society is not a top-down entity. "Dangerous to the public" is simply one of the standard refrains used by groups in power looking to suppress others under the color of law. It's easy to argue that dissent should be contained w…

Democracy is distributed power. Dissent has its voice in a democracy but should also respect that it is a not a majority opinion. It should work to peacefully persuade enough of its virtue to become the oppressive majority. Otherwise it's totalitarianism.

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

#156

Post by nemo44x »

AmIFirstToThink wrote: post #134
nemo44x wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Thanks. I mean it. >Take action I am, by speaking up here.

> Thanks. I mean it.

What do you mean?

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

#157

Post by AmIFirstToThink »

burkaman wrote: post #148
AmIFirstToThink wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is any criticism of Islam or the prophet a fair game as per your interpretation of those positions?

It is legally fair game, yes. The resolution makes no restriction on speech, and specifically calls out the importance of freedom of expression. As I said, the only concrete obligation in the resolution is prohibiting discrimination. Speech is not discrimination, and the Human Rights Council has never claimed that it is.

Thanks. I will adjust my understanding of this point.

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

#158

Post by gnaritas »

lliamander wrote: post #150
gnaritas wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My claim is that the OP, by haggling about definitions, is trying to negotiate the meaning of the word. Oh, ok, yes he is and that's the problem, he's wrong. It's a stupid semantic debate where he's arguing over a word and everyone else is discussing what things we should guarantee everyone has. We call those things rights, whether the OP likes it or not, the issue at hand is what those rights should be, not what t…

> ...he's arguing over a word and everyone else is discussing what things we should guarantee everyone has. And I would say that settling on a useful definition of the word is a great way to settle the question of actual policy. In this sense, the definition becomes a decision criteria.

And that's exactly what won't work; there isn't a single set of decision criteria that can replace consensus and reason. People aren't algorithms, you can't simplify their values and judgement into decision criteria. It doesn't work for morals and it doesn't work for law.

The attempt to limit rights to categories like positive, negative, or natural is a pointless semantic debate that doesn't actually matter because law doesn't work that way, it works by consensus, which is messy and not always rational out of context of the history of the times they came to be. Quite simply, it's naive.

Something is a right if enough people say it is, period. No other criteria matters, never has, and never will. You either understand this, or you don't and engage is pointless debates telling people they can't use a particular word because you're too dumb to realize they're discussing a concept that exists independently of the word "right" and your attempt to forbid them from using the word "right" to represent that concept isn't going to change the concept they're discussing.

As soon as you say what rights ought to be, you've just excluded yourself from the discussion and started a semantic debate. There is no "ought", there is simply that which enough people agree to.

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

#159

Post by [deleted] »

AmIFirstToThink wrote: post #4
bkeroack wrote: post #3

If every material thing that the developed world has is a "basic human right", then effectively nothing is a basic human right. Furthermore it conflates material comfort with the inherent inalienable rights that human beings are born with, which I think is quite dangerous.

Thank you for restoring my faith in humanity. It's not all lost, we still have a chance. Edit: I was serious. I really liked what you said, especially: "Human rights aren't "provided" to you. You are born with them and they can never be taken away, only violated by thugs and tyrants."

[deleted]

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

#160

Post by bkeroack »

AmIFirstToThink wrote: post #4
bkeroack wrote: post #3

If every material thing that the developed world has is a "basic human right", then effectively nothing is a basic human right. Furthermore it conflates material comfort with the inherent inalienable rights that human beings are born with, which I think is quite dangerous.

Thank you for restoring my faith in humanity. It's not all lost, we still have a chance. Edit: I was serious. I really liked what you said, especially: "Human rights aren't "provided" to you. You are born with them and they can never be taken away, only violated by thugs and tyrants."

I upvoted. :-)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_I...

Post reply on HN