[art_fan_12]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/mobile/technology/8548190.stm

Less than 20 years from obscurity to a human right. What do you think?

[Creva4k]

I think it's BS. Internet is a privilege, not a right surely.

[escolubtessen]

Its not a human right. At all.

Everything necessary to live can be accessed through "regular" ways of communication, banking, buying stuff, managing your life. Its just easier through the internet with a few things.

Some people also think TV is a human right. And thats like 60 years old. Things that make your life convenient but arent necessary to live a dignified and healthy life arent a human right. At least they shouldnt be.

[anaisdannyxys]

Tough one. On it's own merits it isn't a human right, but it every other country in the world has it and you don't then it could be argued that it is infringing your human rights I guess.

[grubnismarl]

Some people also think TV is a human right. And thats like 60 years old. Things that make your life convenient but arent necessary to live a dignified and healthy life arent a human right. At least they shouldnt be.

To me I guess it depends how you look at it. If the government took away your access to the information provided by the Internet, TV, etc. I suddenly see the idea of you human rights being taken from you. Come to think of it when you consider the Internet as an interactive media it infringes your freedom of expression in a way that Television can't. Really that's how you have to consider it granting you access so you can look at pr0n or shop on eBay is not a human right but preventing someone from accessing the internet based on their views and their desire to express them can be considered limiting human rights.

[grubnismarl]

I think it's BS. Internet is a privilege, not a right surely.

How do you swing so far in the opposite direction though? I may not be a human right but surely it's not an entitlement granted to you by the government either.

[Serereids]

Internet is a right... If a person is denied access/restricted access to the internet due to political reasons then yes it is wrong. But to say that a poor country has to provide internet access because it is a human right... I don't agree. There are more important things to iron out such as clean drinking water, public transport, infrastructure, essential services, power, and so on....
Internet comes after you have those bases covered... You go from mail/landline telephone to cellular telephone to internet.
The internet has such huge advantages... Governments can provide forms digitally, businesses can grow/spread, social networking, job growth/skill development, news, knowledge, entertainment, and so on.

[escolubtessen]

To me I guess it depends how you look at it. If the government took away your access to the information provided by the Internet, TV, etc. I suddenly see the idea of you human rights being taken from you. Come to think of it when you consider the Internet as an interactive media it infringes your freedom of expression in a way that Television can't. Really that's how you have to consider it granting you access so you can look at pr0n or shop on eBay is not a human right but preventing someone from accessing the internet based on their views and their desire to express them can be considered limiting human rights.

Even if you dont have a TV or access to the internet at home, nobody has taken the "right" to these media sources away from you. You can go to an internet cafe, watch TV in a bar, at the local train station or at your neighbours. And please dont pull that "what about the man without legs" card on me, as this would ridicule this conversation.

But what are we talking here about anyway? Giving "access" to enough food, a roof above your head and a working heating/waterflow come long before the access to the internet. First, give every homeless an apartment, and then we can talk about internet access. If your opinion is, that you have to work for an apartment or enough food, then of course access to the internet is a million miles away from becoming a human right.

Internet is a right... If a person is denied access/restricted access to the internet due to political reasons then yes it is wrong. But to say that a poor country has to provide internet access because it is a human right... I don't agree. There are more important things to iron out such as clean drinking water, public transport, infrastructure, essential services, power, and so on....
Internet comes after you have those bases covered... You go from mail/landline telephone to cellular telephone to internet.
The internet has such huge advantages... Governments can provide forms digitally, businesses can grow/spread, social networking, job growth/skill development, news, knowledge, entertainment, and so on.

You dont have to look at poor countries for this.

[denSmumbSes]

Internet is a right... If a person is denied access/restricted access to the internet due to political reasons then yes it is wrong. But to say that a poor country has to provide internet access because it is a human right... I don't agree. There are more important things to iron out such as clean drinking water, public transport, infrastructure, essential services, power, and so on....
Internet comes after you have those bases covered... You go from mail/landline telephone to cellular telephone to internet.
The internet has such huge advantages... Governments can provide forms digitally, businesses can grow/spread, social networking, job growth/skill development, news, knowledge, entertainment, and so on.

Agreed, I suppose I'd some it up best as its not a fundamental right to have access, but if you do have access it would be infringing on your rights to have it taken away - If that makes sense.

At the very least, the rate the internet is expanding into everyday life, if it's not a right already then it certainly will be in another 10-20 years.

[janeemljr]

You will not deny me my right to facebook

[BakerBonce]

It might be a human right but not top priority. I wouldn't want to live without anyway hehe.

[grubnismarl]

Even if you dont have a TV or access to the internet at home, nobody has taken the "right" to these media sources away from you. You can go to an internet cafe, watch TV in a bar, at the local train station or at your neighbours. And please dont pull that "what about the man without legs" card on me, as this would ridicule this conversation.

But what are we talking here about anyway? Giving "access" to enough food, a roof above your head and a working heating/waterflow come long before the access to the internet. First, give every homeless an apartment, and then we can talk about internet access. If your opinion is, that you have to work for an apartment or enough food, then of course access to the internet is a million miles away from becoming a human right.

I think you are completely missing the point I was making. It had nothing to do with providing internet access it's to do with limiting access. No one would at first consider access to a photocopier a right but in the USSR access to photocopier was strictly limited and controlled. Even many of the elites did not have access to them and had to transcribe anything they read. A photocopier doesn't seem to mean much to us it's something we might use to copy our drivers license or our pay slips but to the Soviets it represented a virtual printing press, a quick way to reproduce "subversive" literature. So as odd as it seems to us a photocopier is a human right.

You seem to have a problem separating a human right from a gift. Rights are something that cannot (or should not) be denied you by government. They are not something government has to provide you with. Just because the 2nd amendment guarantees Americans the right to bear arms it does not mean the government has to provide you with guns. Likewise the pursuit of happiness doesn't mean the government has to provide you with all the things that make you happy but they aren't allowed to place an impediment to that desire for happiness. So it is with the internet, the government has no duty to provide you with access to the internet but they have no right to limit your access just because you said something they don't like nor do they have the right to limit what you can see because it makes the government look bad. China is a great example of this.

[Dwnijzhd]

does this mean I can take BT to court over human rights abuse if they dont give me free Internets when I next get a phone line installed ?

[escolubtessen]

I think you are completely missing the point I was making. It had nothing to do with providing internet access it's to do with limiting access. No one would at first consider access to a photocopier a right but in the USSR access to photocopier was strictly limited and controlled. Even many of the elites did not have access to them and had to transcribe anything they read. A photocopier doesn't seem to mean much to us it's something we might use to copy our drivers license or our pay slips but to the Soviets it represented a virtual printing press, a quick way to reproduce "subversive" literature. So as odd as it seems to us a photocopier is a human right.

You seem to have a problem separating a human right from a gift. Rights are something that cannot (or should not) be denied you by government. They are not something government has to provide you with. Just because the 2nd amendment guarantees Americans the right to bear arms it does not mean the government has to provide you with guns. Likewise the pursuit of happiness doesn't mean the government has to provide you with all the things that make you happy but they aren't allowed to place an impediment to that desire for happiness. So it is with the internet, the government has no duty to provide you with access to the internet but they have no right to limit your access just because you said something they don't like nor do they have the right to limit what you can see because it makes the government look bad. China is a great example of this.

The internet is a tool, not an institution. Free speech can be had without the internet. The poorest beggar can go to his representative's office and voice his opinion. Or quite a few people in Thailand can voice their opinion but dont have access to the internet. Or many natives in Australia, Brazil or other countries voice their opinion without the internet, and noone holds them back. If China restricts its use, then their problem isnt the control of the internet, but the lack of free speech itself. The internet just can be used (-> tool), to keep the government in check or brake its laws.

What would happen if "the internet" would brake down tomorrow? Would the human right of free speech vanish in Western Europe or North America?

Food and water arent tools. They are necessary to survive. You cant be human if you cant live. First things first. I'm not mixing up anything or missing the point. You just claim that a certain tool is necessary to keep human rights in place, which doesnt make sense. The internet just helps people in certain countries, to act out free speech, but only the governments themselves cant grant it.

[DumbNelmcrece]

Thing is I consider education a human right, free speech is a human right and freedom of expression. Yes the internet in itself is a tool, but it provides you with a way to actualize those rights.

In oppressive regimes, the internet is an absolute necessity for freedom of speech. All those videos coming out of Iran were made public and available worldwide thanks to the internet. Perhaps they could have gotten out of the country by different means, but the right to free speech would have been restricted.

You can have the right to free speech all you want but if you can't exercise it in any meaningful way it is tantamount to not having freedom of speech in the first place.

[grubnismarl]

The internet is a tool, not an institution. Free speech can be had without the internet. The poorest beggar can go to his representative's office and voice his opinion. Or quite a few people in Thailand can voice their opinion but dont have access to the internet. Or many natives in Australia, Brazil or other countries voice their opinion without the internet, and noone holds them back. If China restricts its use, then their problem isnt the control of the internet, but the lack of free speech itself. The internet just can be used (-> tool), to keep the government in check or brake its laws.

What would happen if "the internet" would brake down tomorrow? Would the human right of free speech vanish in Western Europe or North America?

Food and water arent tools. They are necessary to survive. You cant be human if you cant live. First things first. I'm not mixing up anything or missing the point. You just claim that a certain tool is necessary to keep human rights in place, which doesnt make sense. The internet just helps people in certain countries, to act out free speech, but only the governments themselves cant grant it.

Just read what BKKK said and see if you get it.

[TOD4wDTQ]

Unfortunately, in Australia nothing is a right.

The internet is a privilege (they can kick you off with a click of a button).

Driving is a privilege (licensing system, roads owned by a company).

Owning a house is a privilege (If they wanted to they can take it away from you, plus in certain areas your bound by restrictions)

Speech is a privilege (say the wrong thing and you get into big trouble)

Walking outside is a privilege (apparently they will be doing random body searches on us now to see if we are carrying dangerous weapons)

Pretty much living in general is a privilege here.

[BakerBonce]

Unfortunately, in Australia nothing is a right.

The internet is a privilege (they can kick you off with a click of a button).

Driving is a privilege (licensing system, roads owned by a company).

Owning a house is a privilege (If they wanted to they can take it away from you, plus in certain areas your bound by restrictions)

Speech is a privilege (say the wrong thing and you get into big trouble)

Walking outside is a privilege (apparently they will be doing random body searches on us now to see if we are carrying dangerous weapons)

Pretty much living in general is a privilege here.

Sounds like such a homey place..

[escolubtessen]

Thing is I consider education a human right, free speech is a human right and freedom of expression. Yes the internet in itself is a tool, but it provides you with a way to actualize those rights.

In oppressive regimes, the internet is an absolute necessity for freedom of speech. All those videos coming out of Iran were made public and available worldwide thanks to the internet. Perhaps they could have gotten out of the country by different means, but the right to free speech would have been restricted.

You can have the right to free speech all you want but if you can't exercise it in any meaningful way it is tantamount to not having freedom of speech in the first place.

Just read what BKKK said and see if you get it.

Whatever guys. People in Western Europe and North America exercised their right to free speech for many years without the internet. Your argument is ridiculous.