Hacker News Reader

Comment by mthreat | Hacker News Reader

As someone who was once banned from the Internet by the US gov't[1], I actually agree with you. People throw around terms like "human right" without knowing what it means. If access to the Internet is a human right, that means every human in the world should be able to demand access to the Internet?

I think the Internet absolutely should receive First Amendment protection in the US (and the US Supreme Court agrees), but calling it a human right doesn't seem to agree with the definition[2]. I'd love to hear arguments for the other side.

Note that this doesn't mean I think governments should be able to actively deny individuals access to the Internet, but a Constitutional right is not the same as a human right.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Lamprecht

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights

View on HN

"If access to the Internet is a human right, that means every human in the world should be able to demand access to the Internet?"

Does freedom of speech mean everyone should be able to demand access to a printing press?

Well, consider this for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights#Water

Specifically: This marks a departure from the conclusions of the 2nd World Water Forum in The Hague in 2000, which stated that water was a commodity to be bought and sold, not a right.[102] There are calls from many NGOs and politicians to enshrine access to water as a binding human right, and not as a commodity.

It seems to imply pretty clearly that access to water as a human right contradicts requirement for payment. The same argument is frequently heard when the healthcare is discussed. So I would say implying that it means not only ability to access but actually ability to access for all, regardless of means - is not out of the question. At least it does not contradict how many other "rights" are interpreted.

> Does freedom of speech mean everyone should be able to demand access to a printing press?

Nah, that's freedom of the press. :P

(Aaand thinking about it, half the people who see this comment won't realize this, so:

That was a joke.)

> If access to the Internet is a human right, that means every human in the world should be able to demand access to the Internet?

You seem to be asking this rhetorically, but I don't see what your objection to people being allowed to demand access to the Internet is. Could you actually spell it out?

What if I can't pay for it? Do I have the right to force somebody else to pay for it? Am I going to be forced to pay for the Internet of somebody else? Why is the Internet a human right but electricity, which is kind of critical to running the Internet, is not?

The Internet just seems really specific (see the list of others at http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/).

Most better-off countries treat electricity as something that if not a right, is at least a strong public-policy priority: something that we believe everyone should have access to. At least, to the extent that the country as a whole is developed enough for it to be feasible. And yes, that includes subsidizing it to improve access; rural electrification in the United States and Canada (at least) was massively subsidized.

But public policy priorities are very different than rights. A public policy priority can be modified or eliminated as circumstances dictate. In theory, anyway, a human right is absolute.

That's why people who campaign for positive rights make a grave error, IMO. It cheapens the entire concept.

> What if I can't pay for it? Do I have the right to force somebody else to pay for it? Am I going to be forced to pay for the Internet of somebody else?

That's roughly what taxes are for, yes.

> Why is the Internet a human right but electricity, which is kind of critical to running the Internet, is not?

There are a number of arguments for electricity being a human right. I'm perfectly okay with saying it is one.

That said, the interesting point is that you're imagining electricity here to be an implicit right of Internet access. That's fine, but it implies that, if Internet access did not require electricity (and who knows, maybe it won't someday), the claim is that Internet access remains a human right without a need to imply a right to electricity.

Because it isn't a "right" that is why. Once you go down that road it means that those that have have to pay for those that have not. No thank you.

> Once you go down that road it means that those that have have to pay for those that have not.

I'm okay with those who have having to pay for those who have not.

I don't understand this logic. Maybe it's cultural. But still, freedom of speech is something like a human right, right? Then does it mean the government need to give newspapers for free to those who won't buy them?

Freedom to access internet is to same level, it means human people shouldn't be arbitrarily blocked from accessing internet, that's all, that's enough, and that's already a lot, actually.

Another point - people in prison still deserve "human rights", even though they've lost their right to freedom. This implies that even freedom isn't a human right. Of course, you could argue that this leads to a contradiction about taking away one's freedom, but that's another discussion.

Via the social contract, by infringing on the rights of another, one volunteers to temporarily suspend the right to freedom. A right cannot be taken away or lost as they are inherent to the human condition.

Actually, a problem with Social Contract theory is that it can't deal with free-riders. If you never agreed to the contract then you can't be obligated to its terms. So you can infringe on the rights of people who did ascent to the terms of the contract without being obligated to submit to any punishment.

I studied law in germany for a couple of semesters and I learned that human rights are never absolute. They are more like bubbles. Basically your right ends where it collides with someones else right or to paraphrase it "one man's freedom is another man's limitation".

The purpose of the law is to make sure, that those bubbles are about equally sized for everyone.

The classic idiom (at least in America) is "Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins."

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Zechariah_Chafee

0 would be equal size for everyone, so I would hope the purpose of the law is more than that. I wouldn't also take Germany as particularly good example because, for example, free speech is not a right in Germany (they may claim they have very good reason for that, but don't they always do so?).

Rights are "not absolute" only is the sense that exercising your right does not absolve you from responsibility for violating other people's rights. So, if you exercise your right to freely use your property, say, a gun, and shoot somebody - you'll go to jail. But not for using your gun - but rather for violating other's right to live unshot by your gun. Your right to use your property didn't go anywhere, but it also didn't remove your responsibility for the consequences of such use. If there's no consequences, there's no place for government to intervene (I know most governments disagree, of course they do).

You completely skipped over: your right ends where it collides with someones else right

This seems to be the most natural definition of rights. I can say whatever unless doing so prevents you from also speaking. Thus, I can't use even larger speakers to drown out what a protesters outside my factory are saying. But, I could use them to convey my message.

Where did you get the idea that "free speech is not a right in Germany"? Free speech _is_ a right[1]. But, following the principle outlined by Riesling it is not an absolute right.

[1]https://www.btg-bestellservice.de/pdf/80201000.pdf - see Article 5

In Germany, speech that is deemed to "incite hatred" is illegal, for example. Also, denying or approving certain things publicly is illegal, even if this deed leads to no harm to anybody. That means no freedom of speech. Freedom of speech includes freedom of saying false, hateful, disturbing and insulting things too. "Not absolute right" means not freedom but government-approved limits. That's exactly what my point was - when you move from protecting rights to banning stuff that does not violate anybody's rights but is unpleasant for people to witness and so banning it is popular - you have a problem with freedom. Don't feel too bad for Germany though - most countries have problems with freedom of speech. It's a hard concept to maintain, since it is unpopular and disturbing speech that needs protecting - nobody objects to popular or neutral speech.

First, a rights violation does not indicate the non-existence of a right.

Second, "freedom" is not a right and never has been. It is not a useful term on its own. You can be free to do something, or free from something, but you can't just be generically free.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com