Is Internet Access A Human Right?

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/perlow/egy...46?tag=nl.e539

Quote:

---

China has blocked searches for #Egypt on its State-approved, State-controlled version of Twitter.

Searches for #Egypt on Sina (with over 50 million users) returns the message, “According to relevant laws, regulations and policies, the search results are not shown.”


As we all know, to the shock and surprise of millions around the world, on January 27 Egypt pulled the plug on its citizens Internet access. Egypt is a very big place, a lot of people were effectively cut off from the outside world.

This is a frightening thing. But I don’t think may people realized just how much it would terrify them on a personal level.

...

That China is attempting an embargo on information about Egypt is not surprising to anyone. Countries that traffic and trade in human rights abuses are studying Egypt right now like it’s time to get an MBA in communication.


They are blocking #Egypt because they are scared. They should be terrified.


The top three countries that censor the Internet are North Korea (#1), China (#2) and Burma (#3). On January 14, Barney Warf, professor of geography at the University of Kansas, published a definitive study of the geography of Internet censorship. Warf cited Myanmar, Iran and North Korea as among the most severe cases of governments that censor people’s access to the Web.

In 2010 a BBC poll found that 4 out of 5 people globally believe that Internet access is a fundamental right.

Anyone want to bet we’re at 5 out of 5 now?

---

Foreign Policy Journal Article about what is missing from the news in Egypt

Quote:

---

The technology component of this cell-phone and Twitter fueled popular wildfire is fascinating not only in that it feels both new and here to stay but that it suggests that democracy itself may have to be updated to stay abreast of contemporary realities. For example, the outrage at shutting down the Internet raises a real question about whether the natural extension of accepted beliefs about both a free press and the right to peaceful public assembly is a new right to virtual public assembly to e-association. Far more people have cell phone than had access to either printing presses or their products (or the ability to read them) in the day that the right to a free press was enshrined as fundamental. [emphasis mine]

---

short answer, no.

Its not, but it damn well should be

No, and neither is cable TV or phone service.

No, it is not a human right but, the constitutional protections against unreasonable seizures [shutting down the internet by government] is something we enjoy as U. S. Citizens.

We also enjoy the freedom [for now] to associate with one another and to engage in commercial markets that sell internet access and the tools and services that allow us that access.

it's not a human right, but using it is necessary to function in today's society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greyforest

it's not a human right, but using it is necessary to function in today's society.

---

not really.

It's a human right

We as human should be entitled to freedom of expression, access to information, etc...
When the Egyptian and Chinese do what they have done, it's goes again what we are (or should be) entitled to.

For anybody saying "NO":

Define "free press"



Given the decline of newspapers and printed word in general, as well as broadcast media, radio, TV, when will access to the wider world of internet news and information be considered a right?

Consider a rough parallel:

You are denied access to newspapers or radio in 1920.

Define "denied access."

If you've been charged for a newspaper, have you been unconstitutionally denied it? I think not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greyforest

it's not a human right, but using it is necessary to function in today's society.

---

Just as access to a printing press was necessary when the first amendment to the US Constitution was added. :stirpot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Define "denied access."

If you've been charged for a newspaper, have you been unconstitutionally denied it? I think not.

---

Where is the line?

If you tax newspapers, based on their contents, with a $500 each tax, does that deny you access?

What's the analogy here? There isn't a $500 tax on newspapers that I know of.

What's the relevance to the broader discussion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

short answer, no.

---

+1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Just as access to a printing press was necessary when the first amendment to the US Constitution was added. :stirpot

---

your analogy is flawed. no one needs access to a printing press to read what comes out of them, just as no one needs a webhost to read the internet.

today's society highly embraces the internet as a crucial means of communication and cataloging information. anyone without access to the internet, especially the younger generation, is severely disadvantaged in a first-world country.

excellent post, greyforest.

free press is defined as freely reported on. It's not my fault they don't have access. I believe the same concept as public restrooms should be applied to remedy this so-called malady.

Human rights are always evolving. Ask the next few generations this question and I think you'll get a different answer.

I'm a little confused about how the question relates to the story. I don't think access to the Internet is a human right in the sense that it should be free for everyone to have web access in their homes. But if they do have the means to have access, the information available to them should not be limited by the government.

Anyway, most people still have free access to the Internet in the same place they have free access to books, newspapers, and other information... the Library.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tyson_Chandler

internet = today's press, which is why obama's proposed kill switch is 100% UNCONSTITUTIONAL

---

I didn't realize Egypt adopted the U.S. Constitution.

The press is still free to write what they want, only the public will not have access to it. Therefore Free Press is still protected. I don't remember reading the "free access" clause in the constitution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tyson_Chandler

obama wants a kill switch right here in america based on the chinese model!

---

link?

(to something other than infowars.com\fucknoiamnotreadingthatshit ?)

This is one of those things that sounds 1/4 true. Some grain of truth wrapped in paranoia, seuted in rumor juice.