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

Internet Access Is a Human Right, Says United Nations

mashable.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 84 posts

Re: Internet Access Is a Human Right, Says United Nations

#51

Post by ctdonath »

adventureful wrote: post #18

Going to have to start by proclaiming that several other things are human rights before you get to Internet access. Access devices are a human right. Electricity is a human right. Access to telecom lines (of some sort) is a human right. Access to mobile or a spot to plug into is a human right. Transistors are a human right. Storage is a human right. Some kind of electronic or digital display is a human right.

There is a difference between the right of not being prevented from doing something, vs. the right to force others to facilitate someone doing something. The right to acquire and use something at your own cost as you see fit is one thing, forcing others via state police powers to pay for and provide those things to you is another.

Know the difference, lest people argue about different things.

Re: Internet Access Is a Human Right, Says United Nations

#52

Post by smsm42 »

Riesling wrote: post #29
mthreat wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another point - people in prison still deserve "human rights", even though they've lost their right to freedom. This implies that even freedom isn't a human right. Of course, you could argue that this leads to a contradiction about taking away one's freedom, but that's another discussion.

I studied law in germany for a couple of semesters and I learned that human rights are never absolute. They are more like bubbles. Basically your right ends where it collides with someones else right or to paraphrase it "one man's freedom is another man's limitation". The purpose of the law is to make sure, that those bubbles are about equally sized for everyone.

0 would be equal size for everyone, so I would hope the purpose of the law is more than that. I wouldn't also take Germany as particularly good example because, for example, free speech is not a right in Germany (they may claim they have very good reason for that, but don't they always do so?).

Rights are "not absolute" only is the sense that exercising your right does not absolve you from responsibility for violating other people's rights. So, if you exercise your right to freely use your property, say, a gun, and shoot somebody - you'll go to jail. But not for using your gun - but rather for violating other's right to live unshot by your gun. Your right to use your property didn't go anywhere, but it also didn't remove your responsibility for the consequences of such use. If there's no consequences, there's no place for government to intervene (I know most governments disagree, of course they do).

Re: Internet Access Is a Human Right, Says United Nations

#53

Post by smsm42 »

barrkel wrote: post #47
mthreat wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who was once banned from the Internet by the US gov't[1], I actually agree with you. People throw around terms like "human right" without knowing what it means. If access to the Internet is a human right, that means every human in the world should be able to demand access to the Internet? I think the Internet absolutely should receive First Amendment protection in the US (and the US Supreme Court agrees),…

"If access to the Internet is a human right, that means every human in the world should be able to demand access to the Internet?" Does freedom of speech mean everyone should be able to demand access to a printing press?

Well, consider this for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights#Water

Specifically: This marks a departure from the conclusions of the 2nd World Water Forum in The Hague in 2000, which stated that water was a commodity to be bought and sold, not a right.[102] There are calls from many NGOs and politicians to enshrine access to water as a binding human right, and not as a commodity.

It seems to imply pretty clearly that access to water as a human right contradicts requirement for payment. The same argument is frequently heard when the healthcare is discussed. So I would say implying that it means not only ability to access but actually ability to access for all, regardless of means - is not out of the question. At least it does not contradict how many other "rights" are interpreted.

Re: Internet Access Is a Human Right, Says United Nations

#54

Post by smsm42 »

qq66 wrote: post #3
presidentender wrote: post #2

The concept of "rights" is growing less useful, I fear.

The resolution doesn't seem to say "Everyone should get free Internet." It says something to the effect of "Restricting people's online expression is a violation of their rights," condemning what Syria or Egypt's governments did when they shut down Internet to prevent citizens from coordinating revolutionary activities.

Are they going to issue press-release on every possible form of expression? That'd take a while, but then again - generating headlines is their business, so it's a win-win.

Re: Internet Access Is a Human Right, Says United Nations

#56

Post by mkaltenecker »

kiba wrote: post #6
qq66 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The resolution doesn't seem to say "Everyone should get free Internet." It says something to the effect of "Restricting people's online expression is a violation of their rights," condemning what Syria or Egypt's governments did when they shut down Internet to prevent citizens from coordinating revolutionary activities.

They might as well just say "freedom of expression".

What’s so bad about clarifying that that includes the internet?

I mean, there are politicians in democratic states who believe that protections afforded to the press on the basis of rights don’t apply to, for example bloggers. It’s not altogether obvious why freedom of expression or speech should automatically include the internet.

Re: Internet Access Is a Human Right, Says United Nations

#58

Post by twelvechairs »

ctdonath wrote: post #50

The USA Constitution was way ahead - by some 225 years - with its "1st Amendment" protection of freedom of speech, of press (publishing), and of association. Gorvernmental interference of what someone says, how someone says it, and who they work with to say it, has long been prohibited. Nice to see the UN catch up. Notice, however, the difference between not interfering vs. forcing others to facilitate : negative vs.…

This isn't really 'catching up' in the way you say. The UN declaration of human rights already says "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.".

This move by the UN seems a deliberate point to ensure 'the internet' cannot be excluded from these bounds. I'm not sure the USA has yet been so explicit.

As a side point for educative purposes only - the US bill of rights was not the first to enshrine freedom of speech and press for a country - that was the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (though both built on the English bill of rights, which enshrined freedom of speech for parliamentarians).

Re: Internet Access Is a Human Right, Says United Nations

#59

Post by Retric »

smsm42 wrote: post #52
Riesling wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I studied law in germany for a couple of semesters and I learned that human rights are never absolute. They are more like bubbles. Basically your right ends where it collides with someones else right or to paraphrase it "one man's freedom is another man's limitation". The purpose of the law is to make sure, that those bubbles are about equally sized for everyone.

0 would be equal size for everyone, so I would hope the purpose of the law is more than that. I wouldn't also take Germany as particularly good example because, for example, free speech is not a right in Germany (they may claim they have very good reason for that, but don't they always do so?). Rights are "not absolute" only is the sense that exercising your right does not absolve you from responsibility for violatin…

You completely skipped over: your right ends where it collides with someones else right

This seems to be the most natural definition of rights. I can say whatever unless doing so prevents you from also speaking. Thus, I can't use even larger speakers to drown out what a protesters outside my factory are saying. But, I could use them to convey my message.

Post reply on HN