QOTD: Is Internet Access a Fundamental Right?

[cag404]

No. This may be OK in Finland, but in the U.S. the framers of the Constitution intended fundamental rights to be those God-given rights inherent to every person. The internet is not given by God...it was given to us by Al Gore.

 

[ruffhouseutah]

Something cannot be right that must be provided by someone else.

Duh.

 

[Guest]

Today a person without internet isnt in a fair world in relation to those how have internet (job, self education, contacts, comerce...)

Think in a modern contry how much worst is for a person with our without internet, the one without internet will have much less chances of getting a job, of having info in many essential subject (health, nutrition, news, or virtually any kind of info that one need or can make you a better person,in terms of education), if someone does not have net will use more gas to go to someplace and will take much more time doing things etc...

That person without internet will have much less chances of a equalitity to the others and to do a life like others.

So YES, to everyone how CANT afford (or every household) there should be free internet.

The same way that the governemnt should at least sponser a basic Linux with a browser email and other tools that are a necessity in todays life.

 

[Tomtompiper]

[citation][nom]rob6188[/nom]One thing leads to another. if internet access is a right, then having a computer is, then having electricity. It's so stupid. Noodlegts said it best - internet service is...a service![/citation]


You better tell the US Government they have to get rid of the Second Amendment.
Your logic is faultless, no free guns, no free ammo, not a right at all, you sir are a genius.

 

[Guest]

Obviously, access to any service cannot, by definition, be a inalienable, human right (just like health care, welfare, etc.). There's not any scenario where Internet access can be construed as anything but a luxury or perk.

Freedom of expression != Free services

 

[Tomtompiper]

[citation][nom]ruffhouseutah[/nom]Something cannot be right that must be provided by someone else.Duh.[/citation]


Another person who wants to get rid of the Second amendment, are you all commies?

 

[MeanSquare]

Basic human rights are things that don't require expenditures of money in order to provide. Internet access is a boon, for sure. It's difficult to see how people can work well in our society without it. It's much more difficult to find available jobs, for instance. Nonetheless, every time we try to guarantee some non-essential right it involves the government taking money from people who earned it and giving it to people who didn't (while some gets stuck along the way) in order to provide it. Right now, it's worth it to me to have it so I pay for it. If the government "provided" it, some of your money would be going to pay for my access (that I already can afford). Does that make any sense? Also, if the government provides the service, they can justify controlling content as well (as they're doing with broadcast media).

I'd rather see efforts privately fund bringing broadband to areas that currently lack it.

 

[SAL-e]

I am really surprised by most comments here!
If the broadcast TV and Radio are recognized as "right" why the Internet is not. Internet is displacing the old communication media and very soon the Internet will be the only media to find critical information.
For everyone who argues that "Internet Access" is not a right I have a challenge. "You are getting disconnected now and you are not allow to access Internet in any form for 12 months." After 1 year will have the same conversation again.
So from my point of view once the Internet becomes the only source of critical information it becomes fundamental right. Because we already have recognized that access to information is fundamental right.

 

[MeanSquare]

Basic human rights are things that don't require expenditures of money in order to provide. Internet access is a boon, for sure. It's difficult to see how people can work well in our society without it. It's much more difficult to find available jobs, for instance. Nonetheless, every time we try to guarantee some non-essential right it involves the government taking money from people who earned it and giving it to people who didn't (while some gets stuck along the way) in order to provide it. Right now, it's worth it to me to have it so I pay for it. If the government "provided" it, some of your money would be going to pay for my access (that I already can afford). Does that make any sense? Also, if the government provides the service, they can justify controlling content as well (as they're doing with broadcast media).

I'd rather see efforts privately fund bringing broadband to areas that currently lack it.

 

[Tomtompiper]

[citation][nom]MeanSquare[/nom]Basic human rights are things that don't require expenditures of money in order to provide. Internet access is a boon, for sure. It's difficult to see how people can work well in our society without it. It's much more difficult to find available jobs, for instance. Nonetheless, every time we try to guarantee some non-essential right it involves the government taking money from people who earned it and giving it to people who didn't (while some gets stuck along the way) in order to provide
it. Right now, it's worth it to me to have it so I pay for it. If the government "provided" it, some of your money would be going to pay for my access (that I already can afford). Does that make any sense? Also, if the government provides the service, they can justify controlling content as well (as they're doing with broadcast media).I'd rather see efforts privately fund bringing broadband to areas that currently lack it.[/citation]

So food is not a basic human right? And you don't have a right to legal representation or first aid should you be injured. Boy I hope you never get into a position of authority.

 

[MU_Engineer]

[citation][nom]tomtompiper[/nom]Your Declaration of Independence has been amended many times, it is not fixed in stone. How can the press be free if the poor are denied the right to read it. At present more and more papers are closing down or moving to online subscription, a trend that is going to accelerate. Where is the unalienable right to a free press without the right of everybody to read it?[/citation]

You have confused the U.S. Constitution with the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence has never been modified as it was essentially a list of unresolved grievances that we were willing to fight to stop that was sent to King George. There is no reason why we would ever need to amend it. The Constitution is (supposed to be) the ultimate law of the land and it would need to be amended if certain laws are to be changed, such as the federal government wanting to charge income tax (which originally was illegal.)

 

[mayne92]

[citation][nom]cscott_it[/nom]...However, for low income families there should be a low-speed discount/coupon...[/citation]
For many places there are no "low-speed" selections and to offer low-speed discounts because low-income families should be able to have Internet access is total bullshit IMO! People need to stop with the BS that low-income people should be offered the same service for much less than those who have gotten an education. Public education is free for such people...time to not be so fn lazy...

 

[Honis]

[citation][nom]srbruno[/nom]What about television? The availability of radio and tv as portals to the outside world were free. The hardware was the only cost.[/citation]
The stations broadcasting across the radio waves needed for TV and AM/FM radio would like you to take a look at the licensing fee they are required to pay to have access to those radio frequencies. They are renting the space from the people (FCC). One of the rules to renting the frequency is that it must also be transmitted in a certain way (ie standard analog or digital signals). If the TV stations could, they would find a way to charge you for accessing their broadcast but because of the rules in place we have open access to the broadcasts. It wouldn't take much to implement a system much like DirectTV where a decoder for each broadcast station is required. All of this was to point out your example is invalid. Broadcast TV/radio and the information in it is not free. You just don't pay for it directly (you buy the advertisers product who in turn pays the broadcaster for the air time).

I do not mind paying taxes to allow public information services like library's to provide internet access in their facilities. Public access to information is not a right of any kind. It is a convenience the public provides itself (either through public entities (gov/taxes/organizations/etc.) or privately (buy the book/ISP/etc.)

 

[MU_Engineer]

One thing that I have seen pop up several times in this thread but not adequately explained is the difference between rights and entitlements. Rights prevent somebody else from harming you. Entitlements are some good or service that others are forced to provide for you.

For the topic of broadband Internet:
- The right to broadband Internet means that the government cannot prohibit you from buying access to broadband Internet. IANAL, but I think that a law banning access to the Internet would probably be illegal in the U.S. as it would infringe upon a U.S. citizen's rights to free speech and association.
- People demanding that others pay for their broadband Internet access are talking about whether or not people are entitled to broadband Internet access.

 

[wardy22]

as said before me, other things similar to internet (telephone, Television, McDonald's..) aren't rights so, no it is a luxury

 

[TheDuke]

well with how information is becoming digital and everything is online now, I believe people deserve to have basic internet services

 

[winterblade]

It should only be a fundamental right in countries where virtually everyone have:
1)Home
2)Electricity
3)Basic Education..
.
.
.
My point is that broadband access is the culmination of the development of a society, if Finland is already there... kudos for them, but for the vast majority of this planet that day is still far far away.

 

[Tomtompiper]

[citation][nom]wardy22[/nom]as said before me, other things similar to internet (telephone, Television, McDonald's..) aren't rights so, no it is a luxury[/citation]


McDonalds is similar to the Internet! I love it where else would yo get such comic gems? You couldn't make it up.

 

[zodiacfml]

it's already under the right for Education. give it to those willing.

 

[Shadow703793]

Access to the information on the internet is a right. Down with CleanFeed!

 

[drowned]

No, it's not a right. I'd go for an internet = library analogy, but a library really only serves to improve knowledge. Youtubing all day and googling your name hardly come close to any sort of mankind improvement.

 

[nforce4max]

With the internet being the last true bastion of free human expression with every tyrannical government all to eager to limit. Freedom of speech is not an luxury it is as important as food and shelter.

 

[Ciuy]

i say YES !!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Guest]

It isn't and it never will be. For the people who are arguing that it gives others an advantage in finding jobs or what-not, that's just bull. If you can't afford the internet then go to your town library and use it there. Wow problem solved.

 

[dan4patriots]

as long as we are paying those damn isp's then yes it is a right