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

61–70 of 84 posts

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

#61

Post by saraid216 »

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?

> Does freedom of speech mean everyone should be able to demand access to a printing press?

Nah, that's freedom of the press. :P

(Aaand thinking about it, half the people who see this comment won't realize this, so:

That was a joke.)

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

#63

Post by maratd »

twelvechairs wrote: post #58
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…

> the US bill of rights was not the first to enshrine freedom of speech

No, of course not. We all get our ideas from somewhere. Much of American law and concepts come from English common law. The English picked it up from the Romans and Germans. So on and so forth.

However, the US bill of rights is certainly the longest lasting. It is my understanding that the US constitution is the oldest constitution that is still in effect.

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

#64

Post by tsotha »

_delirium wrote: post #24
SoftwareMaven wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if I can't pay for it? Do I have the right to force somebody else to pay for it? Am I going to be forced to pay for the Internet of somebody else? Why is the Internet a human right but electricity, which is kind of critical to running the Internet, is not? The Internet just seems really specific (see the list of others at http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ ).

Most better-off countries treat electricity as something that if not a right, is at least a strong public-policy priority: something that we believe everyone should have access to. At least, to the extent that the country as a whole is developed enough for it to be feasible. And yes, that includes subsidizing it to improve access; rural electrification in the United States and Canada (at least) was massively subsidiz…

But public policy priorities are very different than rights. A public policy priority can be modified or eliminated as circumstances dictate. In theory, anyway, a human right is absolute.

That's why people who campaign for positive rights make a grave error, IMO. It cheapens the entire concept.

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

#65

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#66

Post by pyre »

maratd wrote: post #63
twelvechairs wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> the US bill of rights was not the first to enshrine freedom of speech No, of course not. We all get our ideas from somewhere. Much of American law and concepts come from English common law. The English picked it up from the Romans and Germans. So on and so forth. However, the US bill of rights is certainly the longest lasting. It is my understanding that the US constitution is the oldest constitution that is still…

What about the Magna Carta[1]?

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_carta

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

#67

Post by accountswu »

gogobyte wrote: post #30

The problem is I despise UN because it is an organization of dictatorships mainly, and extremely corrupted one.

You mean it's a dictatorship run by the minority rich western white countries that force their imperialism on the majority of the world through the various arms of UN? That the US is able to impose sanctions on Iraq and now Iran even though the majority of the world is opposed to the sanctions? That the US is able to shield Israel from any sanctions despite its grave violations of human rights, its refusal to end the military occupation, its refusal to allow Palestinians to have their land back (whether 1967-occupied 22% or the 1948-occupied 78%), its refusal to allow the right of return to non-Jews who were kicked out in 1948 (under UN law the refugees forced out or those left voluntarily have the right to return) and its insistence to allow Jewish immigrants to settle in the land being stolen every day by demolishing homes and evicting non-Jewish owners?

http://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/state-dept-says-it-is-not-cons...

MS. NULAND: We have no reason to believe that it is not credible. It’s based on eyewitness accounts, and they’re reporting from a broad cross-section of human rights figures inside Syria.

QUESTION: So the next time Human Rights Watch comes out with a report that’s critical of Israel for its treatment of the Palestinians, I’ll assume that you’re going to be saying the same thing, correct; that you think that the report is credible, it’s based on eyewitness accounts?

MS. NULAND: As --

QUESTION: And you’re not going to say that it’s politically motivated and should be dismissed?

MS. NULAND: Matt, as you have made clear again and again in this room, we are not always consistent.

https://www.google.com/search?q=peaceful+settlement+of+the+q...

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/resolving-the-israel-palest...

Year

Vote

[Yes-No-Abstained]

Negative votes cast by… 2005

156-6-9

Israel, United States , Australia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau

2006

157-7-10

Israel, United States , Australia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau

2007

161-7-5

Israel, United States , Australia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau

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

#68

Post by smashing »

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.

You forgot uptime because none of that is worth anything if the system isn't running, and someone has to be available to make that happen 24/7.

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

#69

Post by [deleted] »

noblethrasher wrote: post #49
zcid wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Via the social contract, by infringing on the rights of another, one volunteers to temporarily suspend the right to freedom. A right cannot be taken away or lost as they are inherent to the human condition.

Actually, a problem with Social Contract theory is that it can't deal with free-riders. If you never agreed to the contract then you can't be obligated to its terms. So you can infringe on the rights of people who did ascent to the terms of the contract without being obligated to submit to any punishment.

[deleted]

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

#70

Post by sirclueless »

smsm42 wrote: post #54
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.

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.

The slippery slope argument is a straw man.

The primary diplomatic function of the U.N. is laying down specific guidelines for international conduct, so that there's no more arguing about what constitutes a violation of a specific treaty.

For example, suppose Ukrageria says, "But Zimbraqistan stationed 14 battleships outside of our port, that's an act of war," and Zimbraqistan counters, "But we just want them to lift the 200% tariff on Zimbraqistanian goods." The U.N. has specifically said that free access to ports is a sovereign right, so that resolves this dispute and gives Ukrageria international support for a declaration of war against Zimbraqistan.

Similarly, some countries have criticized Egypt for disconnecting its citizens from the global internet. Egypt in turn counters that their citizens still can express their opinions and speak freely so it's not a human rights violation. The purpose of the U.N.'s resolution is to resolve this dispute and clarify that freedom of expression must include international communication over the internet.

Post reply on HN