EU recognizes Internet access as a fundamental right, on par with freedom of expression

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-299414.html

by andr • 17 years ago

46 40 17 years ago

news.zdnet.com

johnnybgoode10• 17 years ago

I believe Estonia did this first, a few years ago. This only dilutes real rights, such as freedom of expression.

vorador• 17 years ago

Why do you believe that ?

johnnybgoode10• 17 years ago

If you meant about Estonia, here is a link: http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0701/p07s01-woeu.html

(I had no idea that it's been almost six years already since I saw that!)

If you meant about the dilution of real rights, I'd have to get political to explain. I hope this is OK since the headline is already political.

It has to do with negative and positive rights. Very briefly, a positive right is a right to be given something through the action of someone else. A negative right is usually a right to be left alone in some way, such as a right to free expression. As a positive right, a right to internet access can only be guaranteed to everyone through a violation of someone's negative rights.

oyving• 17 years ago

As both government and businesses put more of their interaction with citizens and customers online, having access to the Internet becomes a prerequisite to participate in society on equal ground with others.

johnnybgoode10• 17 years ago

I agree with you. It's very important for people to have internet access for the reason you mentioned, and also to have better access to more knowledge (Wikipedia!).

anigbrowl2• 17 years ago

This is an important point. Sometimes we read about people here being banned from using the net (sometimes for things like soliciting minors, but also just because it's regarded as a 'luxury'.)

As well as being very hard to enforce, it's not unlike house arrest. Like others here, I have difficulty functioning without net access. And it's pretty much an economic essential if you want any kind of a decent job.

alnayyir2• 17 years ago

Wait what?

What makes freedom of expression a real right and not access to internet?

Who made you king of the universe?

cabalamat• 17 years ago

Much of the way I express myself is via the Internet. Take away my net access, and I don't have freedom of expression.

JunkDNA• 17 years ago

Well, at least as far as the USA is concerned, the founders enumerated the list of natural rights endowed on people by their creator. This was not arbitrary, it was based on thousands of years of western philosophy. What the original poster is worried about is the conflation of entitlements with rights.

johnnybgoode10• 17 years ago

If one can simply make up any rights someone feels like having, even when they contradict fundamental rights (see my earlier post), I don't think they can be considered "real".

If you believe in equal rights (i.e., nobody is king of the universe) then you can't support the infringing of some people's rights for the benefit of others.

Ardit20• 17 years ago

Unfortunately the EU Parliament has no legislative power. The Council of Ministers, which according to the article seems to contest that resolution is the final arbiter. However it seems quite a nice move and perhaps if it gets publicity and support the council of ministers might find their hands tightened.

donaldc• 17 years ago

It is actually hard to tell from the article whether the EU parliament recognized Internet access as a fundamental right. The article itself did say that's what it did, but there was no actual quote from what the EU parliament passed that corroborated that they actually said this.

In any case, I think that holding Internet access to be a fundamental right is confusing means with ends. Freedom of expression is a fundamental right. One could argue that freedom to pursue education and better oneself is a fundamental right. Internet access is an implementation detail of ensuring these rights in the 21st century.

Fundamental rights are about principles; something like universal Internet access is about implementation.

ivankirigin3• 17 years ago

Positive rights are very different than negative rights. Right to free speech means no one can oppress your speech, essentially barring action, so it's called a negative right.

A right to a trial by jury is the only positive right in the US Bill of Rights. It's a huge pain in the ass to do jury duty, in part because law mandates we take action.

A positive right to health care coverage or internet access are ridiculous, because it is a mandate for someone to provide service to you.

Instead of people operating in good faith through mutually beneficial exchange, the government steps in and makes people do it. That kind of violence or theft is bad.

I'm all for greater access to the internet. Calling it a right is a bad idea.

anigbrowl2• 17 years ago

this is a naive viewpoint. government is not necessarily an 'other' which impinges on us; rather, it's an organization to which people can outsource the largest scale tasks, such as infrastructure or military defense. It would be nice if all commercial exchanges were mutually beneficial, but they're not.

anamax2• 17 years ago

this is a naive viewpoint. It would be nice if all govt activities were beneficial, but they're not.

Also, commercial enterprises can do very large scale tasks such as build dams, road systems, and the like. It's not much good at doing military defense, but for making stuff....

ivankirigin3• 17 years ago

Please describe some of the commercial exchanges you partake in that are not mutually beneficial.

The difference between government and an outsourcing organization is that the government will violently shut you in a room for a very long time if you decide not to participate in a mandate.

netsp• 17 years ago

There is also a middle ground: Instead of 'rights,' call internet access, health care or jury trials 'good.' Have governments pursue 'good.' They will argue about whether laissez faire is better at achieving this good then direct provision, but the groundwork is less idealistic & thus more likely to be rational.

If something is a 'right,' it makes it automatically take precedence over anything that is simply good (like faster internet access). This is a problem if you are deciding between connecting a small number of people or improving the service for a large number of people.

I don't think the distinction between positive & negative is useful for anything more then a rule of thumb. It's just that positive rights tend to cost less to grant. If we were comfortable with fewer absolutes, I would favour replacing rights with good, bad, better, worse. *For the sake of predictability & a workable battle cry, it may be useful to grant tentative rights. But I wouldn't call them rights. "The government has decided to grant everyone access by 20XX."

EU recognizes Internet access as a fundamental right, on par with freedom of expression

Related Stories