QOTD: Is Internet Access a Fundamental Right?

No.... there is life beyond the internet....

I still am not sure if it should be considered a basic human right. However, a minimum of 1 megabit as a law sounds good.

no, its a luxury, not a necessity like food clothing or shelter.

No. There are dozens of other paths of communication that can be undertaken if the Internet is not present. Sure, the Internet is the most dynamic and useful of all, but it's not necessary for basic and/or civil life. Some may argue that you require it for work and such - but then shouldn't your employer provide you with it during work hours? Does everyone have a right to own a car? No. It's a luxury. We're certainly attached to the Internet a lot, but in no way does that make it necessary, or necessarily a right.

Telephone isn't a right, internet access isn't a right either.

However, for low income families there should be a low-speed discount/coupon. As contradictory as this may sound, I think that children need to grow up somewhat exposed to the internet\computer, or their chances of adapting to non-blue collar job are slim.

No, it is not a "basic" right. A basic right is something that cannot be done without. Speech, religion, not being beaten, those are basic rights. Internet access is a luxery.

I'd much rather my country give us free water. Water should be a right. Electricity would also be nice, but that's asking a lot.

What does "fundamental right" mean? Is that everyone should have it access to obtain it, or everyone should have it for free? I don't think everyone should have it for free, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't all for a 100-megabit connection for everyone. I just don't know if I would say it is a "fundamental right."

In a way, yes. Things like education, healthcare, basic nourishment and accommodations are fundamental rights in my opinion. The internet is now a major part of education though so it is a fundamental right in that regard. However, by that I mean that internet should be freely available at public libraries and in schools. Internet at home isn't though. To have benefits such as internet at home, being able to buy textbooks rather than borrow them, to watch tv etc - those should be earned.

However, on the other side of things, the ability to have internet at home within reasonable costs if you can afford it *should* be ensured. Fundamental right maybe not but in a modern country run with taxpayers money, it should be ensured that where you live doesn't determine whether you can get internet or not - i.e. rural places should maybe have caps on how much they need to pay to have internet installed. For example, if you're a farmer living in the countryside then you shouldn't have to pay more than say $1000 to have a line installed rather than the 10s of thousands that such people can be charged.

It's surprising to me that so many people feel that internet access should be a "fundamental right," along with the right to marry, the right to privacy, freedom of speech, etc. It certainly doesn't fit nicely into the category of rights recognized as "fundamental."

What does this "right" entail? Right to in-home access? If so, who's going to implement a program so that the "right" means something, and who's going to pay for it? Or is it a more general right to access - for example, by using public terminals or libraries? And what does it mean to even *have* a "right" to internet access? Does it mean a right to purchase access, or does it mean a right to have it provided?

It's a nice thought, a right to internet access - effectively, a right to information and communication - but it starts looking a lot less appealing to me when you start thinking about implementation, oversight, and a vastly higher degree of government involvement in what has, historically, been a largely private industry. Obviously government oversight has been increasing as the internet has become a greater part of our daily lives, but it would skyrocket in the event that it was characterized as a "fundamental right." But let's be realistic - that's happening anyway, whether it's a right or not.

I don't know about what happens where all the posters who said no live, but where I live a lot of jobs are only available on line. I'm not saying that every home should have free internet, but i do think that everybody should have somewhere they can go to access free internet, be that a library or a community centre.

A right? No.
A requirement for many people? Yes

The "need" for Internet access is a perception problem. It displaces older mbehaviors and communications like real journalism, social life, economies, exercise, and physical businesses. This seems a barrier to "progress" by people who don't have it. They just don't understand how lucky they are.

Unfortuately we have become extremely dependant on the internet, simply because it is the one place we can go to get/do almost anything in existance. It is just so useful and simple to anyone that uses it.

I think it should not be a fundamental right because our lives should not revolve around computers and the internet. But if it were taken away now I think you would see a massive drop in the worlds population...

It is becoming a fundamental right with every passing day. As companies move more to electronic data and start doing away with paper, it is forcing everyday people to start paying bills electronically, accessing information electronically sometimes without offering any other alternative. Electricity and other utilities, personal records, etc. are all necessities in life. Once the paper alternative is taken away completely, then the internet becomes a right.

Sounds about right, at least 4/5th's of the worlds population are idiots. Now if only the internet could cure their stupidity.....Oh it can, but they choose to use facebook.

It is not a fundamental right. Freedom of speech is a fundamental right. The internet is something that exists for those who are willing to pay to access it. Internet service is... a service. Not a right.

Next we're going to be debating whether or not McDonalds is a right.

Wait Wait Wait.

The questions should be:

"Should the access to information be a fundamental right?" or should information be free?

What about television? The availability of radio and tv as portals to the outside world were free. The hardware was the only cost. Why is this no different, as far as free information access goes? Why didn't the radio broadcasters get told to just broadcast freely at libraries?

On the other side, what about electricity? We can't conduct life without, is that a basic fundamental right? One might suggest it is more than information.

This is a deep topic. love it. :-)

Is Internet Access a Fundamental Right?

IF I was to say it wasn't, then the Government or a Private Organization could assume control and deny access based on race, color, religion, iq, gender or any other number of arbitrary discriminations.

So yes, I would say Internet Access is a fundamental right.

Is Internet access a luxury or a necessity?
Necessary for what? Life, business, education, to pay a bill, what?
Necessity for X, if you don't give me X I can't answer the question.

Internet access is not a fundamental right. You must pay for internet access. Fundamental rights can never be bought or sold, or even created or destroyed for that matter. Our Declaration of Independence says it is self-evident that certain rights such as freedom of religion and freedom of the press are unalienable. And I don't think internet access should ever be one of them.

well, according to Ubisoft and alike, its as necessary as electricity...

in my opinion the idea behind all of this is free access to free information and information not controlled by usa or china... different animal, same breed.

the net has grown beyond governments and companies, even futuristic mega-corporations.

The net is the true beginning of the human-kind, where after we can finally leave
our borders behind and harness our Earth for the common good, not for 200Mhz more or for blood diamonds for that matter.

I live in a hut on the top of Mount Everest, now bring me my frickin internet access - I need it to play Assassin's Creed II!

One thing leads to another. if internet access is a right, then having a computer is, then having electricity.

It's so stupid. Noodlegts said it best - internet service is...a service!

Your Declaration of Independence has been amended many times, it is not fixed in stone. How can the press be free if the poor are denied the right to read it. At present more and more papers are closing down or moving to online subscription, a trend that is going to accelerate. Where is the unalienable right to a free press without the right of everybody to read it?

No. This may be OK in Finland, but in the U.S. the framers of the Constitution intended fundamental rights to be those God-given rights inherent to every person. The internet is not given by God...it was given to us by Al Gore.

Something cannot be right that must be provided by someone else.

Duh.

Today a person without internet isnt in a fair world in relation to those how have internet (job, self education, contacts, comerce...)

Think in a modern contry how much worst is for a person with our without internet, the one without internet will have much less chances of getting a job, of having info in many essential subject (health, nutrition, news, or virtually any kind of info that one need or can make you a better person,in terms of education), if someone does not have net will use more gas to go to someplace and will take much more time doing things etc...

That person without internet will have much less chances of a equalitity to the others and to do a life like others.

So YES, to everyone how CANT afford (or every household) there should be free internet.

The same way that the governemnt should at least sponser a basic Linux with a browser email and other tools that are a necessity in todays life.

You better tell the US Government they have to get rid of the Second Amendment.
Your logic is faultless, no free guns, no free ammo, not a right at all, you sir are a genius.

Obviously, access to any service cannot, by definition, be a inalienable, human right (just like health care, welfare, etc.). There's not any scenario where Internet access can be construed as anything but a luxury or perk.

Freedom of expression != Free services

Another person who wants to get rid of the Second amendment, are you all commies?

Basic human rights are things that don't require expenditures of money in order to provide. Internet access is a boon, for sure. It's difficult to see how people can work well in our society without it. It's much more difficult to find available jobs, for instance. Nonetheless, every time we try to guarantee some non-essential right it involves the government taking money from people who earned it and giving it to people who didn't (while some gets stuck along the way) in order to provide it. Right now, it's worth it to me to have it so I pay for it. If the government "provided" it, some of your money would be going to pay for my access (that I already can afford). Does that make any sense? Also, if the government provides the service, they can justify controlling content as well (as they're doing with broadcast media).

I'd rather see efforts privately fund bringing broadband to areas that currently lack it.