Four in five believe Web access a fundamental right

[cory777]

Source: Reuters

Sun Mar 7, 4:07 pm ET

LONDON (Reuters) – Four in five adults believe access to the Internet is a fundamental right -- with those feelings particularly strong in South Korea and China -- and half believe it should never be regulated, according to a global survey.

A poll of 27,000 adults in 26 countries for the BBC World Service showed 78 percent of Internet users believed the Web gave them greater freedom, while nine in 10 said it was a good place to learn.

Respondents in the United States were above the average in believing the Internet was a source for greater freedom and they were also more confident than most in expressing their opinions online.

However, others felt concern about spending time online, with 65 percent of respondents in Japan saying they did not feel they could express their opinions safely online, a sentiment that was also felt in South Korea, France, Germany and China.

The issue of Internet freedoms hit the headlines earlier this year after the world's largest search engine Google Inc threatened to quit China, the world's biggest Internet market, over strict censorship rules.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100307/wr_nm/us_internet_survey

[Demeter]

1. It Is Truly Universal Freedom of the Press

the best thing that happened to the human race since agriculture.

[slackmaster]

2. Of course it's a right

It's not an entitlement.

[toopers]

3. Sorry - access to the web is not a right.

EOM

[slackmaster]

4. Sure it is - People have an inherent right to say, own, or do anything that hasn't been prohibited

By due process of law.

[Dreamer Tatum]

11. When did you make that law up?

If you have to get it from someone else, it isn't a right.

Which excludes the Net.

[slackmaster]

12. It's the basis of our entire legal system

A lot of people on DU don't seem to grasp the concept. Many of us believe that rights are always granted by someone or some document. That's true in some countries, like Cuba.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That doesn't mean we're entitled to get anything we want for free (i.e. have someone else pay for it), but it does mean that by default we have the right to own, say, or do anything we please.

Among those things is access to the Web. Until an oppressive government restricts access, we have it and we have a right to it.

If you have to get it from someone else, it isn't a right.

That would apply to health care, wouldn't it? I stitched up a big cut on my leg once. If it hadn't been a holiday weekend, I would gladly have gone to a hospital ER.

And marriage?

I suppose we could all grow our own food and construct our own housing, but that would require a substantial restructuring of society.

[Dreamer Tatum]

13. Healthcare isn't a right. Nor is marriage, nor is food, nor is shelter.

Those are basic human needs and preferences, but you are not entitled to them as an American.

Sorry.

[slackmaster]

16. No, they are basic human RIGHTS but not ENTITLEMENTS in the USA

:argh:

[No Elephants]

18. If you need a license to marry, it's no more a basic human right than driving a car is.

[slackmaster]

25. Driving a car is a basic human right. Marrying is a basic human right.

Driving a car on public roads has been proscribed for anyone who doesn't have a license to do that.

The right to marry has been curtailed through due process so that, for example, only a man and a woman can marry in California, and that the state recognizes only marriages performed in a certain manner by certain people.

Before those restrictions existed, driving and marrying were unrestricted rights.

[teknomanzer]

22. I heard some airhead right winger say the same thing.

I NEVER imagined I would find similar opinions on this board.

Food is not a right? Is life a right? Do people have the right to LIVE? If so then how does one live without food? Is it okay with you if we just starve prisoners because they have no right to eat? But under the constitution starving someone to death would be cruel and unusual - yet a free person is totally on their own with your logic.

If access to food is not a human right then there are NO human rights at all.

You are an evil shit if you would watch someone die painfully of starvation because you believe food is not a right. I don't think you even know what human rights are.

[Dreamer Tatum]

28. Eh, whatever. None of those things are rights. You're thinking of entitlements.

If you want to say that Americans are unconditionally entitled to food, shelter, and medicine, then fine.

But they are not rights. If I have food and you do not, you are not entitled to mine. I have to give some to you,
or you have to forcibly take it from me.

Sorry.

[teknomanzer]

31. Interesting...

So hypothetically speaking if I allowed a person under my care to starve to death I could argue that they had no right to food?

I feel fairly certain that I would be convicted of some crime in that instance. Perhaps you could be my council in that case.

[Dreamer Tatum]

33. Literally speaking, you need a brief course in logic and rhetoric nt

[teknomanzer]

34. How very supercilious of you...

I'm just trying to determine what you believe are human rights.

As far as logic goes I'm am fairly certain that life requires sustenance. Do you assert that life is not a human right? And if you should believe that life is in fact a human right should it not then follow that sustenance should be regarded as a basic human right?

It's not really my concern if the constitution does not expressly guarantee the right to food. The rights guaranteed in the constitution have no meaning if the basic human right to life is not an a priory argument. The dead do not speak, nor do they lay claim to any property. Law does not apply to the dead for they have eternally escaped any punitive action.

I would also point out that arguing from the absurd is a valid form of rhetoric.

[Dreamer Tatum]

38. I think we can both agree that you have let the construct of Constitutional rights

supersede your definition of human rights.

Else you'd be making your posts from prison, where you'd have been sent for theft long ago.

So spare me the human rights canard, please. We are talking about rights enumerated under
the founding principles of this country, which is to say the rights we are accorded against
our resource allocation institutions.

[teknomanzer]

40. We don't agree on a damn thing.

I PAY for my food because it happens to be convenient, its easier to acquire sustenance that way. It is easier than hunting and gathering, and it beats getting hassled by the authorities.

You'd best believe that I have more regard for MY life and life of others over conceptual claims to property. If there happened to be some sort of natural disaster - like that which occurred in New Orleans - I would not hesitate to toss a cinder block through a plate glass window to get people something to eat. And I would probably be called a looter by you legalistic mush-heads. I would hold in contempt any court that would convict me for acting to save someones life and I would happily mock those who choose to follow the letter of the law over compassion.

I think its funny when someone is confronted with REAL logic they immediate try to spin it off as someone using a canard. The fact is that the rights enumerated in the constitution are totally meaningless unless they rest upon the unwritten foundation of a basic human right to life.

[Dreamer Tatum]

43. Thanks, you made my point for me

You participate in our social institutions because it's EASIER? Rights do not have degrees of difficulty. You have them, or you do not.

If a hungry person wanted food from you, you'd probably give it to them. If a hungry person TOOK food from you, especially if it involved breaking into your house to get it, you'd call the cops. This, despite your claim that sustenance is a right. If sustenance is a right, then why would any door in the world have a lock on it?

Once more, your claim is that you are ENTITLED to sustenance. Fine: argue that the government should collect from people who have to provide for people who have not. But a RIGHT? Nope, sorry.

[teknomanzer]

45. You are apparently unaware of the definition of entitled...

Here are a few definitions.

qualified for by right according to law; "we are all entitled to equal protection under the law"

Entitlement is a guarantee of access to benefits because of rights or by agreement through law. It also refers, in a more casual sense, to someone's belief that one is deserving of some particular reward or benefit. It is often used pejoratively in common parlance (e.g. a "sense of entitlement").

In other words an entitlement is a "right."

You are confusing ENTITLED with "sense of entitlement."
SO SORRY.

If someone broke into my house and took food and ONLY took food I would probably be inclined to let it go (and for the sake of the thread topic I do not assert that people have a right to access the internet) while lamenting the fact that the situation has degenerated to such levels where someone thought it was necessary to do so. I might also consider how soon I might find myself in such circumstances.

If I came home and found some stranger in my kitchen munching on a box of corn flakes I would probably be very alarmed; I will give you that. I would definitely want to know who they are and what they wanted. If supplied with a reasonable explanation such as "I am starving and I need something to eat," I might also be inclined to let it go. But these are hypothetical situations that are not likely to occur in a stable society.

If such conditions were in effect I would most likely find myself as the person in need of sustenance. Further, being the smart fellow I am, I would probably look to take my food from more abundant sources than someone's private home and if it came to that I would probably knock on a few doors first. Only in a dire situation where I could find no sympathetic persons or institutions would I consider breaking and entering because at that point I would consider my right to live paramount. I would be forced to TAKE because my right to life was not respected.

And yes I participate in our social institutions because it is easier. We ALL participate in these social institutions because its far easier to abide by mutual agreements then it is to live a hand to mouth existence. We form societies for the mutual benefit and protection of everyone in that society. This is the very foundation of the constitution. Any society that allows SOME members to enjoy the benefits and protections of the society while denying them to others is completely degenerate and headed for collapse. Your argument is effete and unprincipled.

[closeupready]

42. What's interesting here is that part of the reason for a Final Solution was the Nazis knew Jews

would return after hostilities had ceased and seize (or attempt to seize) control of the assets which had been taken from them (land, artwork, bank accounts, etc.). In other words, the Nazis implicitly recognized that nothing short of death could strip citizens of certain rights, since even if one state is willing to recognize an illegitimate transfer of ownership, the vast majority of other states will not be willing to do so.

[closeupready]

41. When you entered this discussion, you gave up your right to be rude.

Please answer his question.

[ulaes]

32. Yep

I follow you, Dreamer. And agree.

[No Elephants]

17. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" iis from the Declaration of Independence, not the

Constitution. The Declaration of Independence did not bestow any rights on Americans. And is not the basis of our entire legal system. A good deal of our legal system began in England, whose statutes and common law the colonies adopted.

The Decllaration of Independence was never intended to be the law of the land.

I agree that you can do something unless and until it is illegal. But, if you get arrested anyway, you may have an expensive court battle ahead of you, proving what you did was not illegal.

[420inTN]

20. The Constitution doesn't bestow any rights on Americans either

It merely bestows rights and restrictions upon the government.

[slackmaster]

26. Not quite. The Constitution defines the scope and powers of the federal government.

Governments have no rights. They have only powers.

People have rights.

[slackmaster]

24. Ah, so you agree with my core point.

I agree that you can do something unless and until it is illegal.

Thank you.

[MellowDem]

5. Now only if it were the same with health care... nt

[undeterred]

30. +100

[MellowDem]

6. dupe nt

[WriteDown]

7. You have a right to buy it just like most services. nt

[kestrel91316]

8. You also have a right to access it for free at most public libraries.

Yay for libraries!!!! Because information, knowledge, and education are NOT just for the wealthy.

[No Elephants]

21. Until the library closes because of the economy.

I'm amazed California's are still operating.

[pipoman]

37. A bit off topic

but this makes me wonder if there is still Carnegie library trust money around funding libraries?

[toopers]

39. You have a privilege to access the internet . . .

there is no right to access the internet.

[No Elephants]

19. A right to pay, for which corporations shed their blood in the Revolution and so many wars.

[RedSock]

9. Finland

October 2009
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10374831-2.html

Finland's Ministry of Transport and Communications has made 1-megabit broadband Web access a legal right, YLE, the country's national broadcasting company, reported on Wednesday.
According to the report, every person in Finland (a little over 5 million people, according to a 2009 estimate) will have the right of access to a 1Mb broadband connection starting in July. And they may ultimately gain the right to a 100Mb broadband connection.

[Uncle Joe]

14. Finland rocks!

:yourock:

[Mike 03]

10. Freedom of Expression on the Net, short of posting illegal material is a "right."

I'm mentally debating with myself over whether "access to the internet" itself is a right. I suppose access to books is a right so long as there are libraries, and if web access is available at libraries and web cafes, then in theory it is a right. Or is it not so much a right as an "Availability," like a shelter for battered women, or the humane society. In other words, it is something that we are fortunate to have available to us for now, but which could go away.

But I want to think about this.

[No Elephants]

23. You mean you can post on any free message board, as long as you obey the rules of that board?

Or, do you mean freedom of expression on your own website?


I don't buy that we have inherent rights. And, if we do, they are very few. If government can outlaw something, it's not a right.

You'd think having a baby you could afford to raise would be an inherent right. Until you went to China.

You'd think having a right to decide between your own life and that of the fetus in your womb were an inherent right that you and/or the father had. Unitl you got to the SCOTUS after Sandra Day O'Connor left.

And so on.

[Uncle Joe]

15. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, cory.:thumbsup:

[Grand Taurean]

27. We have it and MUST NOT let it get away.

[Alias Dictus Tyrant]

29. The founding fathers were suckas.

[Lagomorph]

35. Well, there is that whole...

electricity thing. I don't think electricity is a right, is it?

[Art_from_Ark]

36. Access to electricity is considered a right

At least, it was in the early days of the TVA and REA

[Odin2005]

44. K&R