Internet access is 'a fundamental right'

[Sisifo]

What is this article? A joke?

Internet can not be a fundamental right, because is not fundamental. Is a tool, not a concept. What would be fundamental would be the concepts that facilitates, such as free education or unfiltered information... This is like claiming the car as fundamental right, instead of the one of "liberty of movement".

And aren't they miximg human rights with fundamental rights? In any case, they are both currently a sad joke of the failure of the ideas and momentum that inspired them.

Meh.

[maiforpeace]

Internet can not be a fundamental right, because is not fundamental. Is a tool, not a concept. What would be fundamental would be the concepts that facilitates, such as free education or unfiltered information... This is like claiming the car as fundamental right, instead of the one of "liberty of movement".

And aren't they miximg human rights with fundamental rights? In any case, they are both currently a sad joke of the failure of the ideas and momentum that inspired them.

Meh.

Well put.

Earlier in the thread Coito wrote:

How about we start by defining the terms "right" and "fundamental right?"

I think this is where our problem lies, we all have different ideas of what a fundamental right is.

[pcCoder]

Well, I think a 'fundamental' right is the most basic right that should be provided if one is not capable of achieving it themselves. I think a regular right is about everything else.

I consider health a fundamental right (and so I support 'socialized' health care). I consider food and homes a fundamental right (some sort of assisted living for those going through hardships, though not perfect and many are still excluded simply because there may not be enough). I consider education a fundamental right (public education).

I also consider access to information, including access via the Internet a fundamental right. This does not mean that the government should necessarily provide connection in everyone's homes if they can't afford it themselves. I do think it means that there should exist some sort of facility that provides public access. Such a facility would allow the usage of computers for an allotted time to look up information and even provide the ability to print out information or save that information to some media (floppy, USB drive, etc). Such a facility may also allow the borrowing of books.

That being the case, I do consider access to the Internet from your own home a right (though not necessarily a fundamental right), the same way I consider sex a right, owning a car, owning a frying pan, being happy, etc rights. It is a right in a sense that no one should stop you or try to prevent you from acquiring such on your own (pay for the service, find a consenting partner, pursue you own happiness, etc), but it will not (necessarily) be provided for you, you have to get it yourself.

[maiforpeace]

I don't think I'm going out on a limb if I say that those who most vigorously will oppose this idea, are Americans.

I'm fine with that, the rest of the world is then just steaming ahead without considering what the kooks in the US are doing. From Internet's perspective, USA will then be considered a bug and traffic will route around USA, so will knowledge. How? Simply by developing services which can not be used in the US due to lack of Internet infrastructure and as such, will leave the US behind.

You can scream bloody murder all you want from your ideological cave but the world couldn't care less what you cavemen says in regards to your antiquated ideas of what constitutes a fundamental right.

I admit, the US is far from perfect. But, contrary to your prejudiced beliefs about the US...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/busin ... EQR/ZmVkzg