[thetygerlily]

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.