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

131–140 of 167 posts

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

#131

Post by AmIFirstToThink »

msla wrote: post #127
AmIFirstToThink wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.…

>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.

I contend that social media platforms of YouTube/Twitter/Facebook are at that level now. Competition is not possible and harm has clearly been done.

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

#133

Post by lr4444lr »

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.

In your original post you said "they [the authorities] judged". In the case of a bank robbery, it is the bank owners who are seeking protection of their property rights. It's not analogous to picking sides to stop a protest in the public square when multiple sides have a stake in it. The bar for abridging freedom of speech in the U.S. as a precipitating cause of immediate danger is very high.

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

#134

Post by AmIFirstToThink »

nemo44x wrote: post #121
AmIFirstToThink wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Thanks. I mean it.

>Take action

I am, by speaking up here.

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

#135

Post by nemo44x »

lr4444lr wrote: post #133
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.

In your original post you said " they [the authorities] judged". In the case of a bank robbery, it is the bank owners who are seeking protection of their property rights. It's not analogous to picking sides to stop a protest in the public square when multiple sides have a stake in it. The bar for abridging freedom of speech in the U.S. as a precipitating cause of immediate danger is very high.

I agree it would have to be an extraordinary circumstance. When a protest becomes violent it is no longer a free speech issue though. If jamming radio frequency communication was somehow the best way to stop a bad situation from getting worse then it would be appropriate to do so. But it should be justified.

Honestly, I struggle to come up with a scenario where jamming public internet access would be the best course of action. But hypothetically I don't see it as a violation of human rights to temporarily stop people in an area from communicating through the Internet on public airwaves if it's a reasonable and effective countermeasure to preventing disaster.

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

#136

Post by ithilglin909 »

wu-ikkyu wrote: post #125
ithilglin909 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Correct -- in so far as it's relevant to this discussion, that supports my point. I'm really not sure what you're trying to say.

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

#137

Post by AmIFirstToThink »

burkaman wrote: post #126
AmIFirstToThink wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Living, breathing, People deserve respect. Ideas don't.

I have seen many cases of criticism of religion equated with criticism of every person who happen to be tagged as person of that religion, and used as a reason to stifle speech.

In Canada and USA, the situation is reversed on free speech. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/derek-james-from/canadas-hypocr...

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

#138

Post by dragonwriter »

wu-ikkyu wrote: post #125
ithilglin909 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> The printing press was the only form of news media

No, it wasn't. Criers existed.

More to the point, though, presses were and are used by more than the news media, and freedom of the press applies to those wishing to use the press whether or not it was in the context of news media.

The news media wasn't the focus of the original freedom, nor is it the correct generalization to new technology (which would be more “freedom to use mechanisms to reproduce and distribute expressions”.)

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

#139

Post by ameister14 »

msla wrote: post #41
ameister14 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd make it a bit more specific - human rights are things that you have in the absence of society, as they are universally applicable, but they don't encompass all rights. A citizen can have a right to something provided by their society.

Rights only make sense in the context of a society, because they can only govern the actions of fellow humans. Animals know nothing about rights. Non-living matter knows nothing at all, and so certainly nothing about rights. Therefore, rights only exist to guide and constrain what humans do, and any group of humans living together is a society.

I don't agree that rights only make sense in the context of a society, as rights may exist without being codified, it's just significantly more difficult to assert them without societal assistance.

I can assert rights to other people without being a member of human society. My right to the apple on the ground is the classic example.

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

#140

Post by burkaman »

AmIFirstToThink wrote: post #137
burkaman wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Living, breathing, People deserve respect. Ideas don't. I have seen many cases of criticism of religion equated with criticism of every person who happen to be tagged as person of that religion, and used as a reason to stifle speech. In Canada and USA, the situation is reversed on free speech. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/derek-james-from/canadas-hypocr...

Yes, the world isn't perfect and sometimes people misuse laws and authority. But there is no contradiction in the UN positions that we're talking about right now.
Post reply on HN