Is Internet access a basic human right?

I wouldn't demand nor expect it, so I had trouble with someone else trying to apply article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to the situation. Ask him.

how do you link article 19 with living in a cabin with no electricity or phone.

Kees mentions article 19 and to each house that has electricity, and you twist that into a cabin with no electricity or phone.

like I said Cabin...Fever?

Article 19 came up when Kees said "article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/) implies the right of access to Internet:".
Article 19 says "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.".
So if Article 19 talks about a "right" and says "everyone", wouldn't that include those without power in their living quarters, or does "everyone" mean just some people have that "right"?
You seem to confuse Kees and me, fever?

perhaps he should have went with this one

Because

Next month, the United States will introduce a national program aimed at giving every American access to a fast Internet connection,

Then

Article 21.


* (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

If you reread my post (#10) you'll see I said: "I think it can be argued that article 19 ... implies the right of access to Internet".

That's clearly not the same as you say in post #34: Kees said "article 19 ... implies the right of access to Internet". I didn't say that at all.

Let's try an analogy that maybe you'll understand:
- I think it can be argued that it's a good idea to send an American to the moon again in 2025.
- I think it can be argued that it's not a good idea to send an American to the moon again 2025.
I said 2 things. Did I express any opinion about it being a good idea or not? No, I didn't. I just said there are 2 sides to the issue, and those are valid enough on the first sight to be argued.

But, to return to your question: even now nobody will deny you the right to use a satellite receiver and a diesel-powered electricity generator to access Internet via a satellite connection in your cabin in the wilderness. So with nobody denying you the right to do it, you can safely say you have it. No need for any new national plan to give it to you.
Don't believe me? Then try and see if the government will send a police team and arrest you.

Kees

for people to know the proper definition of rights. We keep hearing that there is a "right" to housing, healthcare, employment, etc.

There are no rights that must be provided by someone else, but that is what is being pushed.

The article says through any media. O.K., lets call the internet media. There is a lot of stuff on the internet, we're using it right now. So, Kees, does Article 19 apply to all of the internet, or just part of it?
If all of it, what about this Forum. Does Article 19 apply here? If so, what about the words "this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference", considering the limits here on the discussion of religion and politics? If that does not apply due to the fact that this Forum is hosted by a private rather than a public concern, could it also be argued that Article 19 applies only to public parts of the internet?

I think the discussion should be on a question like

"The government strives to make broadband access to the Internet in the future faster and wider accessible in the USA than it is now. So as to be on a par with other (western) countries; it seems to lag behind a little bit at the moment. Do you agree with that plan, in principle, even if the details still have to be worked out? Or do you think it's a bad plan, because - for example - you think (a) current facilities in terms of speed, capacity, availability and price are fine for 2015 use or (b) it isn't a government task to make a policy on Internet access, because it's a typical free market item not in need of regulation and stimulus, or (c) an other reason?".

That would be a much more interesting discussion than talking dots and comma's in (semi-)juridical documents and exceptional cases to apply them on. Let's leave that to the lawyers and judges.

But I think the usual SE member isn't interested in discussing the future of Internet in the USA.


Kees

However you want to spin it, we were talking about one thing (is internet access a basic human right?) and you tried to turn it into something else. Am I wrong?

If you want the discussion to be something else (that YOU think would be more interesting), start a new thread or subthread instead of being childish and petulant, eh?

My answer would be (b).

First, let me explain that I go way back with the subject of getting "online" with a computer, back to the pre-Internet days. I started with 2 methods of access, Comp-U-Serve and the Source. For 300 Baud I paid $6.95 an hour. Then eventually came the internet. I got on it when they started unlimited access. AIR, that cost me $24.95 a month, and started with 33kbps, quickly changing to 56k for the same price. I had dial up until I had to leave the farm and move to Atlanta. Well before I left the farm the battle of the providers allowed me to get my provider down to $17.95 a month. When I got to Atlanta, I continued that service for a good reason, but discovered that Ma Bell had been busy upgrading their lines to fiber. They gave me access via DSL at 10Mbps for $22 a month. The speed increase was great, and I love it. Interesting point: I still wanted to keep the dial-up account, and when I mentioned that I now had DSL with Ma Bell, the dial-up ISP cut their price to $9.95 a month.
Do you see where I'm going? Quality of service has been going way up, and at the same time price has been going down. As I mentioned, Ma Bell has been busy as a beaver here and elsewhere stringing fiber. It's going to be the battle of the providers again, It started with Internet on ATT and Cable, and even more competition is getting into the game. The game itself is also changing, other players are getting into things like movies and TV. Cable went into Internet, and Ma Bell has plans for getting into things like movies with their service.
Bottom line, in the U.S., things are rapidly changing for the better on the subject at hand. Another point I think needs to be made is that the U.S. is a big country, and a lot of people live in remote areas. I dare say that things will improve in their area also, but due to the size of the territory involved, it can't be done instantly. I don't think that the Government's getting involved would improve the rate of change.

Quality of service has been going way up, and at the same time price has been going down.

If you're satisfied now, you might be more satisfied somewhere else

Or, I could get faster service on the same DSL I have now. It's currently 10Mbps, but I could get faster service, 100Mbps, as I remember. But why, the speed I have right now takes care of everything I care to do at that speed at a nice price. Perhaps, if later I want more speed I'll see if they will play lets make a deal.

The fastest our ISP offers is 12 Mbps download, 2 Mbps upload, for $70/month. I cannot imagine needing 100 Mbps for residential use, nor can I imagine paying for it.

One other variable enters in. Your speed depends on the slowest link in the process. We nominally have 6 Mbps download but actual speed testing rarely goes near that number. I suspect that there are a lot of potential bottlenecks in the system.

I was in error, I just used a number I remembered about speed from one of the many snail-mail offers they sent me. It was 100 times dial-up speed. Just marketing phraseology, I didn't pay close attention, as I'm happy as a clam with the speed I've got for my purposes.
Their pitch mentions downloading movies, so that brings to mind one of the other companies making pitches to me for Internet service, my cable company. I didn't even look at their speed claims, as I'm already satisfied. In any case the competition situation I mentioned has developed, ATT and the Cable are competing. I dare sat that the situation will result in better deals for customers in the future.
As an aside, prompted by the Cable company's touting their on demand movie offer, why should I pay $3.99 each to watch movies when NetFlix is out there?

for those who would violate rights if they are malleable. Health care simply cannot be a right because it requires someone to provide it. Therefore you are mandating that someone do something that might be against his/her will, i.e. enslaving that person to some degree.

So, rights ARE fixed things that are independent of the society and the legislature. You have them whether the king acknowledges it or not. I believe strongly that that was the Founders' conception.

Act enslaved Segregationists and forced them to do something that they did not want to do. The Universal Sufferage Amendment of 1920 enslaves its opponents. And before the Tea Party muddied the waters, the majority of American Physicians, up to 75% polled were in favour of some form of Universally Available Health Care. It was widely reported both in newspapers and on Television. My memory actually is that they favoured a mix of Centrally Funded and Privately Funded Health Care:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=health-care-reform-doctors-favor-a-2009-09-16

From Business Week, not your usual wild-eyed hyper-liberal source:
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2008/tc20080331_551691.htm


Very interesting article comparing the Canadian and Us Health Care systems from the Canadian Medical Association Journal: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2565716/

Loss of a privilege, like separate schools or drinking fountains or comfortable benches in the shade, or equal access to Health Care is not enslavement, it is equal access under the law. It is the embodiment of "All People are created Equal" (sic), and as such it is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, all else is merely debate. I grant you that the loss of privilege is distressing to those who are losing the privilege, but that doesn't make either it wrong, or them right. That way lies the "He annoyed me so I shot him", defense in court.

And God bless my first year Philosophy prof who dinned that into my head despite strong resistance.

Rob

Declaration/Bill of Rights (first Ten) recognized that more rights than those enumerated existed or might come to exist. The key phrase is among these Rights ....

Ninth Amendment ? Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Women got the Right to Vote in 1920, though it was a heavily contested "Right". Rights were later construed to include the Black population. Rights are endowed by their Creator, but it may take men and women a few years, decades, or centuries to recognize that those Rights have been endowed and have always existed, or are a good idea.

Alexander Hamilton, in his argument opposing the codifying certain rights said "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"

The citations are from Wikipedia since my library including my much dog-eared, highlighted, and underlined copy of the Federalist Papers is still held hostage by my spouse.

There is a problem in seeing history or society or people's perceptions of Rights as frozen in time sometime around 1791. Society changes, peoples ideas change, conditions change, and we have to learn to live with it. Rights are supposed to be about freeing people to live more complete, more expansive lives, what would have once been called a "richer life".

More pointedly, if all men (and women, and races) were created equal, 10,000 years of civilization failed to recognize it. Universal rights are a very new and as yet not all that widespread phenomenon.

Thank you for discussing this with me,

Rob

I don't know that we are 'discussing' anything. I don't think we are even referring to the same thing in our comments about 'rights'.

Legal rights like suffrage are not the same as human rights and it does not do much good to muddle them up. If suffrage were a human right then it would not be limited to disqualify non-citizens or other classes of people. Voting is a legal/political right, and those are obviously not fixed. They vary considerably from society to society and from era to era.

Although I recognize the incompleteness of the list in the Declaration of Independence, I do agree with the author(s) that human rights (as opposed to legal rights, which are whatever the government says they are) are properly derived from the Creator. They may or may not be recognized by a government or society but that does not mean they do not exist.

I guess to that extent I DO regard human rights as 'frozen' - but not in time and certainly not in AD 1791. I don't discount the possibility that more Creator-granted human rights will be recognized over time, but that just means humans can be slow learners. It does not mean the rights are necessarily new.

Political/legal rights, which you seem to be discussing, are an entirely different thing.