The Warring States of NPF - So I've Heard That Some People Want To Add "Internet" As A Human Right

The Warring States of NPF (http://www.nuklearforums.com/index.php)

- Bullshit Mountain (http://www.nuklearforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=3)

- - So I've Heard That Some People Want To Add "Internet" As A Human Right (http://www.nuklearforums.com/showthread.php?t=37445)

Nope.

This is ridiculous, that's like saying the mail and TV should be free, which would mean we'd use socialist practices to distribute them which is NOT the answer for computers.

We'd probably get Macs -_-

No, no, no, if ANYONE wants to get a computer its like $300-400 for a small notebook that runs XP, and internet is already provided gratis by most coffee shops now adays.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lev

This is ridiculous, that's like saying the mail and TV should be free, which would mean we'd use socialist practices to distribute them which is NOT the answer for computers.

I'm sorry, what?

Ignore Lev, everyone else does.

Also

Quote:

Am I the only one who finds this a bit stupid? The internet, a human right? Seriously? It doesn't matter how important it is, it's not essential to living, which is what one would assume would be basic criteria for being considered a human right.

Freedom of speech, press, arms bearing, quartering troops etc. aren't necessary for living, either. Rights aren't about what you need to not die, rights are about what you need to be treated fairly, and as has been said, access to knowledge and information is a large part of that, and the internet is a large part of that. It's like books, nobody can say "You're not allowed to read this" just as nobody should be able to say "You don't get to see what the rest of the world is up to". If you can afford your own books/internet, super great, more convenience for you. If you can't, libraries are supposed to be there to give you access to both those things at no cost.

So no, access to information being a human right is not "a bit stupid" or a new idea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Charter

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

This is a tool. This is not essential to surviving.

The press still make you pay for newspapers. We pay tv licenses for our tvs, and we pay monthly subscriptions for things like sky and digital tv, which have a great many more channels expressing every known format of thought, artistic expression and belief, and full time news channels. We pay telecoms companies for phone calls.

We pay for this stuff, just as we pay for internet access and pcs. So why should the internet be free? It's a business. Most of it is run by corporations. Those corporations want to make a profit. They make you pay to access it, they rent out servers for other people to host their own sites, where they can sell their own products. It is not a human right.

That above quote I believe is more to do with with allowing people to have freedom of thought, beleif, opinion, expression, and to be able to write and speak what they will, without being persecuted for those beleifs and thoughts. They are still within their rights to make people pay to listen to them though.

Having the internet be free for everyone isn't really on the table here. Also see DFM's post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hawk

See my second post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osterbaum

The internet has something to do with all of these.

The way I see it, making acces to internet a human right would limit attempts by certain parties to try and benefit off of the internet at the expense of "the consumer" ie. people. The internet has become a major media. The internet is the press, self-expression and a social forum among other things. These are all basically human rights.

My thought was that the internet, as a service, is already part of the Charter. If they're talking about "Everyone should have a computer and internet access" instead of "Everyone should be able to access the internet," then it's a different thing. But I'm thinking that it's the latter, rather than the former. So, to me, the idea that:

"Everyone should have the right to an internet connection"

is already in there. There's more round-about ways of saying it - everyone has equal rights, goods and services are to be offered to everyone... If they're saying you have the right to a connection rather than the connection itself, I can't see anything in the charter that would prohibit that.

Quote:

See my second post.

Yeah I'd forgotten you'd said all that. Pretty much was I was trying to say. And I never said that access to information was stupid, merely that rectifing the charter to say "everyone should have internet access" was stupid and pointless, because yeah, you might as well throw tvs and radios and newspapers and mobile phones and half a dozen other things on there as well.

It kinda goes without saying that people are well within their rights to watch tv and surf the net.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seil

My thought was that the internet, as a service, is already part of the Charter.

As long as it isn't specified more clearly, if and when it comes up people can just say "It's just the internet, it's not like it's a basic human right or anything".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hawk (Post 1023805)

We pay tv licenses for our tvs

What

But yeah, I think its suggesting everyone has the right to uncensored internets, but calling its a "right" is misleading and kinda dumb. I think a large number of the supposed 80% who said they want it to be a right just want free internet.

re, "internet is not necessary to survival" - neither are guns, but holy fuck if you try to call them anything other than a right in the US.