Internet Access: A Budding Right?

Is access to the internet a right?


  • Total voters
    43
So what say you, is the access to the internet a right we should have?

It shouldn't be a right, but any nation that implements widespread internet connectivity for its people would be smart in doing so. It would create a more informed and possibly better educated public, which would advance the interests of the nation. It's a lot like public education. In the US, no one has the right to an education, yet children go to school all the time. If the state did not provide public education, only a tiny fraction of people, the wealthy, would send their children to private schools. You'd end up with a country full of ignorants who would be incapable of functioning in today's world.
 
Heh! No, it's not and should not be a guaranteed right. No more so than television is a right or cell phone service is a right or any other service is a right.

What next? "OMG! I'm being denied an XBOX Live 360 subscription, it should be a right guaranteed to me!"
 
EDIT: Sisyphus beat me to it, DAMN YOU!

I reserve the sole right to quote Alpha Centauri and Monty Python, and the Dune Series at every appropriate moment. :lol:

Umm..those seem like rather contradictory statements. If there are laws in place to prevent congress/gov't from restricting it, wouldn't that make it a right...?

What I meant is that it is not the government's responsibility to ensure internet access to its citizens. There should be no laws restricting internet access any more than there should be laws restricting the use of duct tape. Yet I don't think anyone would say we have a specific right to use duct tape other than we should do what we please if it doesn't harm others.
 
I dunno, but it's a good idea to give everyone internet access. That's arguably a right.

Why should it be a right? What about people who abuse the priveledge?
 
Yet, internet access is not and should not be a right. However, neither should the congress restrict internet access.
I agree, that's it exactly.

There are actually two ways of looking at a "right" - there's saying that it's a right in that it must be provided for them, and there's "right" in the sense that other people (or at least, the Government) can't take it away from them.

Unfortunately people usually assume the former meaning, yet constitutions tend to protect the latter.

This distinction is often pointed out with Freedom of Speech - you have a right to free speech, but you don't have a right to be given a platform for your views, or for people to listen to you.

Or right to bear arms - does anyone seriously think that this means the Government must supply everyone with a gun? Of course not.
 
Are you going to question education as a right too?

How can you compare education being a fundemental right to the internet being a fundemental right?
 
Why should it be a right? What about people who abuse the priveledge?

You know, you really can't call soemthing a "right" and a "priviledge" in the same sentence. :p

Human rights can be restricted, too - freedom of expression can be limited to a small degree in the theory of liberalism, so you could say the same for internet access. However, the internet is far too great a tool to deny to people - and censoring something you dislike is absolutely not justifiable.
 
You know, you really can't call soemthing a "right" and a "priviledge" in the same sentence. :p

Bill you cant be that slow...

I didnt call it a right, i said how can you call it a right. And i said its a priveledge.

Not the same thing.
 
Education is still a necessity, teh internetz! isnt.
The internet is becoming a fundamental part of education.

I didnt call it a right, i said how can you call it a right. And i said its a priveledge.
Well yes, but you can't simply say that' it's a priviledge, either - justify it. I explained why it can still be considered a right if it can be restricted if it is abused.
 
Why not? What's the difference?

The difference is, without a educated society, humanity will become backwards again, we *could* survive without the internet.
 
The internet seems to be protected under freedom of speech and press; it is no more or less of a "right" than the right to purchase a newspaper.
 
The difference is, without a educated society, humanity will become backwards again, we *could* survive without the internet.
But would we not be backwards without the internet?

Also , we could survive without education.
 
The internet is becoming a fundamental part of education.

True but its still not nessesary.

Well yes, but you can't simply say that' it's a priviledge, either - justify it. I explained why it can still be considered a right if it can be restricted if it is abused.

I cant, there is no clear distinction. Its anyones opinion in what can be considered a priviledge or right.

When my mom was a kid, drinking one soda a day was a priviledge. But i drink 15 coke zeros a day and thats practically a right to me.

But i call it a priveledge because there is no huge repercussion by not having the internet. Life goes on, and so does education and social interactions.
 
Back
Top Bottom