QOTD: Is Internet Access a Fundamental Right?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]drowned[/nom]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.[/citation]

A right to internet does not necessarily mean in your home. It could be provided at a local public venue or library, and it does not need to include porn, you-tube or other frivolous sites. It could be a couple of Linux kiosks with restricted access and a cheap colour printer with reasonable prices per page. Ideal for searching for Jobs, information, e-mail and news. Useless for playing games and wasting time.
 
No, you have a right to buy it if you can afford it. Like a watch, car, boat, phone, tv, ect. The government is not suppose to buy you anything as they make no money, they just take from others through taxes. How would you like it if you were stopped on the street & told/made to buy a tv for another guy that just happens to be walking on the same street as you. If you want something, work for it & buy it yourselves.
 
Not only is internet a basic human right, it also must be unfiltered. What good is internet if you can't use it to keep informed on politics, etc. (China)?
 
Nope. I believe access to it through libraries and other public places is good, and could almost be a right, but Internet in your home is not a right, nor should it be.
 
Although there is "life beyond internet", it's also imperative to recognize its crucial to just about anything in life. Social connections (email, im, Facebook, Tom's, etc.) and everyday life that it should become a fundamental right. Most people use it for school, jobs, shopping, banking, and the list goes on forever. It really is pretty much necessary to modern life in America (and other developed countries.)

In Finland it wasn't like everyone gets 30Mb/s lines or something, everyone got basic Broadband connections that could handle the basic necessities - email, online banking etc- and that's it. If you wanted more, you had to pay for it.
 
it should defenetly be a basic right! why, i'll tell you why, everybody has the right to information, to emancipation through information and the internet is the best way of achieving it. in a democracy, the state is supposed to be the guarantor of this things, so, by a logical extension the state is supposed to be the guarantor of the means that are used to achieve this things!
 
One simple yardstick I've used regarding rights (and I was taught this in grade school by a very astute teacher) is, "What are the corresponding responsibilities?"

Voting, in certain countries, is a right. The responsibility is that you vote, hopefully with some understanding of who or what you are voting for. Freedom of speech? The responsibility is to speak as honestly and honorably as you can. Liberty? The responsibility is to be ready to stand up against tyranny. Can these all be abused? Yes, and they are on a regular basis.

So, if Internet access is a right, what is the corresponding responsibility? To access it? Doesn't seem likely. To post comments? Hardly seems that that would be it (although it is fun). I am having a hard time coming up with what would be a real and valuable responsibility to qualify it as a "right". I am open to suggestions.

Now, have we made it a necessity? I think we pretty much have. There was a time when only the wealthy could afford to have the encyclopedia at home. If you didn't have a local library, you didn't have access. Iy was also possible that your library had an encyclopedia, but it was way out of date. This gave those with current encyclopedias an advantage. Now, the internet offers so much (too much?) information to any who can access it, giving them an advantage. Should it be accessible to everyone? I think so. A need in our times, yes. A right - I'm inclined to say no. Of course, it wouldn't be the first time I'd been wrong - Finland's government seems to think I'm wrong.
 
@groveborn - Religion is not a basic right. You can live very well without it; in fact, you can live better.

Internet? Also not *basic* right. Nor is it fundamental.

It's just really handy. You can totally get through your day without it. It's just that if you don't have a life, your day would totally blow.
 
If you give someone something that they cannot afford for free, what makes them work hard in life. A public library should have access to the internet yes, but limited to news and Information. If Internet is that important then go back to school, work two jobs, make something of yourself. Handouts just keep people down!!!
 
The very concept of internet access being a "right" is absurd. How will provide this "right"? Who will pay for it? Whose rights will be eliminated to be forced to pay for the "right" of someone else to have internet?
-----------------

If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor.

Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right.

- Ayn Rand 1905-1982 -

 
[citation][nom]g-thor[/nom]One simple yardstick I've used regarding rights (and I was taught this in grade school by a very astute teacher) is, "What are the corresponding responsibilities?"Voting, in certain countries, is a right. The responsibility is that you vote, hopefully with some understanding of who or what you are voting for. Freedom of speech? The responsibility is to speak as honestly and honorably as you can. Liberty? The responsibility is to be ready to stand up against tyranny. Can these all be abused? Yes, and they are on a regular basis.So, if Internet access is a right, what is the corresponding responsibility? To access it? Doesn't seem likely. To post comments? Hardly seems that that would be it (although it is fun). I am having a hard time coming up with what would be a real and valuable responsibility to qualify it as a "right". I am open to suggestions.Now, have we made it a necessity? I think we pretty much have. There was a time when only the wealthy could afford to have the encyclopedia at home. If you didn't have a local library, you didn't have access. Iy was also possible that your library had an encyclopedia, but it was way out of date. This gave those with current encyclopedias an advantage. Now, the internet offers so much (too much?) information to any who can access it, giving them an advantage. Should it be accessible to everyone? I think so. A need in our times, yes. A right - I'm inclined to say no. Of course, it wouldn't be the first time I'd been wrong - Finland's government seems to think I'm wrong.[/citation]


The responsibility is to Learn from it and make sure you are Informed.
 
[citation][nom]anti-socialism[/nom]The very concept of internet access being a "right" is absurd. How will provide this "right"? Who will pay for it? Whose rights will be eliminated to be forced to pay for the "right" of someone else to have internet?-----------------If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor.Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right.- Ayn Rand 1905-1982 -[/citation]


The very concept of freedom of speech being a "right" is absurd. Who will provide this "right"? Who will pay for it? Whose rights will be eliminated to be forced to pay for the "right" of someone else to have freedom of speech?


The very concept of free legal counsel being a "right" is absurd. Who will provide this "right"? Who will pay for it? Whose rights will be eliminated to be forced to pay for the "right" of someone else to have free legal counsel?

I could go on, but i think I have made my point.
 
I do wish it was cheaper. We need more competion in the US. I think the government should install the fiber and then cable companies share the lines and offer the service, and pay the governemnt for access to the line. That way a number of companies could compete and better standards would exist. More people in the country would also get internet as lines woulnd't be run based on ROI, but instead because a few people live there. It would equal out in the end, more ROI in the cities and less in the country.
 
To have a phone, would that be a right? You kind of need one if you are a working member of society, along with an email address.
 
It's definitely a luxury. However, most people would classify it as a necessity, especially if your business depends on the internet for customers.
 
[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]

A) The Declaration of Independence has never been amended, you're thinking of the Constitution, ratified more than a decade after the colonies declared independence.

B) Just because the press is "free" doesn't mean it is without cost. I pay a subscription fee to have a newspaper delivered to my house every day. The same goes for magazines.

C) Being unable to read the newspaper is a matter of poor education which results mostly from poor parenting, as well as crappy schools. I can't speak for the US as a whole but Washington state ranks 41 out of 50 in terms of scholastic achievement, yet is in the top 5 in terms of money spent per student. Spending money doesn't correlate with performance. If the business model is failing, no amount of money will save it, just postpone the inevitable.
 
am glad to see many geeks and internet addicts saying no

i say no too..

i imagine i could live after an EMP Bomb strike..
 
[citation][nom]groveborn[/nom]No, it is not a "basic" right. A basic right is something that cannot be done without. Speech, religion, not being beaten, those are basic rights. Internet access is a luxery. I'd much rather my country give us free water. Water should be a right. Electricity would also be nice, but that's asking a lot.[/citation]
hm i agree with most of what you say...but religion is a basic right?...
 
[citation][nom]p05esto[/nom]I do wish it was cheaper. We need more competion in the US. I think the government should install the fiber and then cable companies share the lines and offer the service, and pay the governemnt for access to the line. That way a number of companies could compete and better standards would exist. More people in the country would also get internet as lines woulnd't be run based on ROI, but instead because a few people live there. It would equal out in the end, more ROI in the cities and less in the country.[/citation]

Before govt started to get involved in stuff like this, people did this through bonded co-ops. Where I live, that exact thing has been done with very little risk to the local taxpayer (and yes, it is kept local), and I have 50 megabit up/down fiber. Government doesn't need to provide the infrastructure, and in my never humble opinion never should.

And internet access is not a fundamental right. Freedom of press is, yes, but to those who liken it to speech and press I say: People are free to speak as they wish, and the press is free to print what it wishes. But the government should never take charge of the press, nor should it give a poor man the money to buy a newspaper. That's describing an entitlement, and not a right.

And about the stupid "free defense attorney" argument - go back and read the 6th amendment again. Never does it guarantee a person counsel, it simply states that they have a right to counsel. A negative liberty; what the government can NOT do to you, not what the government MUST do FOR you.

Internet access is not a fundamental right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom