Is internet access a fundamental right?
 

A new BBC poll found that four our of five people around the world believe internet access is a fundamental right. Time to change the universal declaration of human rights to read...."everyone has the right to life, liberty, security of person and 24/7 broadband. No one shall be held in servitude to crappy net connections or the torture of dial up". wink

The survey - of more than 27,000 adults across 26 countries - found strong support for net access on both sides of the digital divide. Countries such as Finland and Estonia have already ruled that access is a human right for their citizens. International bodies such as the UN are also pushing for universal net access.

link

What is your opinion?

Consider

Internet and education and internet and public services as factors.

France's Constitutional Council (the highest Court for this sort of matter) ruled as much a while back when it struck down France's three-strikes piracy rule.

I don't think the EU has ruled one way or the other, but I do know they do consider universal telephone service to be a human right.

How do you think it would apply to the US?

I don't think it would. Especially with the current Supreme Court and Congress. First, Congress is not going to go against the information industry lobbyists who want to be able to deal harsh penalties to those who fileshare.

Second, the Supreme Court, especially with its current makeup is unlikely to create any new rights like this from whole cloth. Could a Constitutional argument be made? Oh sure... would it go anywhere? Highly unlikely. The U.S. has avoided entanglement in international human rights tribunals for good reason.

Out of curiosity, exactly what kind of Constitutional argument could be made? I fail to see how that falls under any of the rights given us.

No, but treated more like a utility (Gas, electric) and less like a luxury (cable).

Interesting approach. I went immediately to implementation and related assumptions. If internet access is a right, that assumes you have access to a computer (which assumedly has internet capabilities), which assumes you have access to electricity, as so on. Is electricity a right? Is access to a computer a right? Is having enough money/resources to pay for these things a right? I certainly agree with not restricting access, but I'm curious as to how something can be a right if it's not logistically possible everywhere.

Regarding the US, in a way public libraries have addressed most of my points. They are widespread, it's free to join them, and most offer free internet access. Even here in Seattle, I know a few people who do not have computers or internet at home, and rely on public libraries for email correspondence and the like. However, I'm not sure that hits everywhere.

But maybe that's too micro for the overall idea. Maybe they're just going for freedom to access if you're able to, as opposed to ensuring that everyone can if they want to (regardless of locale or means). Eh, interesting nonetheless.

Depends on what's happening. Let's say we're talking about one of these so-called three strikes laws where after three times getting caught, you're banned (by government order) from using the internet.

Just spitballing, I'd say 1st Amendment Free Speech; 14th Amendment due process; 14th Amendment Substantial Due Process [in that internet is a fundamental liberty interest, also maybe privacy]; maybe something else.

In response to those, simplistically and in order, I'd say that Free Speech can be curtailed when there's a compelling state interest in doing so, and in this case, it's more of a criminal penalty than an assault on free speech; that so long as there's notice and an opportunity to be heard re: the sanctions, due process is satisfied; that there has been no such thing as a fundamental right to the internet so far, so one can't be invented.

Good lord, who's going to financially support or regulate it? A computer, high speed connection and ergonomic chair for every man, woman and child? Where would it end? Prison cells, hospitals, street corners?


I can read the headlines now:

Slumlord Sued Because Tenant Can't Access Porn

DSS Removes Neglected Teenager from Home:
Authorities investigates the parents of a 14 year old girl who refused to allow her to download music from the website iTunes. The parents, who only subscribe to a dial-up connection, told officials that the songs take too long to download, and keep the telephone line tied up.

Ha! Love it.

I KNOW! Just like those other silly public expenditures that we have to build, staff and keep up . . . like libraries, public pools, softball fields, historical preservation committees, and the like. Oh wait ...

There's a pretty important argument against making information a commodity any more than it already is, and like it or not, the internet is wholly ingrained with information, and this will only continue to increase. In particular, as governmental documents and tasks become more automated and web-based, it is increasingly more likely that those missing the ability to access the internet are more likely to miss out on important services or similar.

Put another way: if you want to pay for a library (which nearly universally contain material that many could find objectionable), arguments against proliferation of internet access fall wholly flat for me.

But except for an argument against discrimination in access, no one has argued that libraries are a fundamental human right or that pools are or that most public goods are, have they?

I agree with the point that access to the internet and all the information it contains is going to be important and that ensuring close to universal access of some kind is a good idea.

But everything that seems swell isn't couched in the language of fundamental rights.

Actually, I would guess that with libraries people have - back along the times of separate but equal. That's part of what all that was about.

I agree, which is why I mentioned arguments in discrimination in access.

But I think there's a difference in preventing a public facility or program from discriminating by race, religion, etc, in who can use it AND declaring something a fundamental right that ought to be provided to all.

And there's no Constitutional requirement for libraries either.

If the internet is a right, then what happens to a hacker who's (justifiably) sentenced to prison?

I would love to see more infrastructure and money for libraries so people can have internet access. Living in a highly wired town in a rural area shows the real dichotomy in my own county. One with a laptop can get online for free all over this town (public library, restaurants, laundromat) but one needs a laptop first. Some towns have wifi access points, but that still requires computer ownership and libraries can provide machines for use, as well as for check out to residents.

However, some libraries require an address and other information for a library (a local address proves residency and without it there is no access allowed or there is an additional fee, therefore making sure those paying taxes in the community have access) and that can hurt people without permanent addresses due to homelessness or those who are transient or migrant workers. A majority of things are done online now, for example the FAFSA and job applications and for people to get a job or an education they need internet access to do it in a timely manner or have an email address they can check as they don't even own a phone.

Yeah - I'm not on board with "fundamental human right" because the language is absurd on face, but it's clear that internet isn't a "bridge too far" in terms of public-sponsored access and infrastructure.

I agree with bolded.

Accessing the internet is just like accessing telephone or television service. You need to A. buy the appliance to utilize the service, and B. purchase the service itself (I'm not sure how the whole analog-to-digital changeover affects "free" television stations, but if you want anything over the basic local channels, you have to subscribe to a cable or sattelite-type service).

None of those are rights, though I think that most of us would agree that a telephone is the closest thing to a necessity in a modern society. Obviously, you don't need a telephone to live and breathe, but it's the most popular and convenient method of communication. Yes, email is catching up, and I am guessing that many people who do have access to the internet use it to find information before/instead of using a phone book, library, or making a phone call.

If you look at the basic rights afforded by the constitution, not one of the rights are related to conveniences.

It's funny that we are discussing this. My mother is looking for a job and commented that it's not fair that many employers only advertise jobs online, that they have online applications, etc. Her argument is that not every "knows the internet" or has a computer. Mind you, we have given her three computers over the course of 15 years, and she has internet access that she does not have to pay for. To address the latter, yes, there are libraries where people might access the internet. To the former, I told her that the internet has been around for a while now, and it streamlined so many processes, especially regarding job hunting and hiring. (I used to work for a major job site in the 90s, and worked on the teams to create a better job search, resume builder, resume search, job posting, to name a few, so the irony was not lost on me).

Does having access to the internet provide an advantage over others? Definitely. In every way imaginable. Faster information. Inexpensive world-wide communication. Unlimited entertainment options. The power of *now*. It's no different than the benefits that arose when people were first acquiring telephones. Instead of walking to the local store to find out when it closed, you could call them. You didn't have to wait for a letter to arrive from across the country to find out if your sister had her baby yet - you could call the hospital.

But again, convenience is not a right. No, it doesn't seem fair that not everyone has access to something as innovative and provisional as the internet, but there was a time that having a phone or a television was a luxury. There are still people in this country who don't have a telephone or a television, and they are still surviving, though without a telephone to call 911, someone could get hurt or die. And still, some people CHOOSE not to have television or a cell phone at all.

I just cannot see any justification to designate internet access as a fundamental right. It's a convenience. As for government regulation like a utility - that I can see, because there are obvious benefits to providing an infrastructure and regulating service. But in this capitalist country, I can see a public outcry of government interference.