79% of adults everywhere believe internet is a right...

[BoberFett]

This. All men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

This is only a problem if the progressive idea of rights - that rights are things to which you are entitled and thus which government must provide if needed - prevails in our country. I think otherwise that most people would agree that accessing the Internet with one's own time and treasure comes more or less under free speech and the pursuit of happiness (defined as midget porn all too often, but whatever) and that government should not infringe on your ability to do so without a damned good, specific, legally codified reason. There is though an element of danger here. Obama himself said the problem with the Constitution and the judiciary-driven civil rights movement was that both focused on what he calls "negative rights" - that is, what government cannot do to you. Obama wants "positive rights" defined - what the government is obligated to do on your behalf. Should this view of "positive rights" become prevalent, then anything the majority (or those in control) decide is a right becomes government's responsibility. In that case there is literally no limit on the size and power of government, as your traditional rights would be matched by someone else's "positive rights" (e.g. you lose your right to bear arms because government must guarantee someone else a right to a safe neighborhood.)

As long as rights are defined as something which the government cannot take from you without a compelling, legally prescribed reason, I don't really see a problem wit this attitude.

Well put.

 

[Modelworks]

A right no. It is being looked at by some though as something everyone should just have. Where my niece lives there is no broadband, dial up barely works, 24.4k is the best I could get her computer to connect and even then it would drop the connection every 10-15 minutes . She is a shy person that keeps to herself and so when she was failing in school and was asked why she said she couldn't do the home work. Everyone thought it was because it was hard or she was having difficulty learning, but in fact it was because of the internet.

The teacher at the school would give assignments like , do a report on someone or look up some subject on the internet. She would get so frustrated trying to do that at home that she just gave up. She had to ride the bus home from school so no staying after school and the nearest library is about 15 miles. Both parents work and by the time they get home the library would be closed anyway.

For kids like her there isn't an easy solution. Schools assume kids have access to computers and internet when many do not. I don't know a way to easily fix that issue.
It reminds me of when I was in high school and the teacher told us , "Don't bring me any papers printed out on those dot matrix printers, I am not going to strain my eyes to read them use a laser printer" , laser printers were about $700 at the time. I had to type my paper out on a regular typewriter, starting over and over with every mistake.

So if you are a teacher please don't assume your students have access to everything that you do.

 

[yllus]

It asked "Is internet access a fundamental right?"
The answer is, no. Internet access is a privilege given to us. There are many other ways to access information, so let's take that out of the equation. You don't need the internet to live your daily life, so take that out. It's a source of entertainment, and whilst a source of information that is readily available, it is a convenience, and not a right.

So you'd have no issue with a federal Department of Internet Access to whom you applied for a license to use the Internet when you turned 21? (Taken away if you go over 10 points.) Of course, by your logic access to television, newspapers and radio is also a privilege, not a right. Those should be licensed as well - would really clean up the airwaves.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

If you want news...read a newspaper or you can even listen to the radio or watch a television news report.

If you want knowledge.....go to a library and ::gasp:: check out some books and read ::gasp::. In a lot cases your information and views would be less tainted. In fact I know of a site that is filled with people who like to screw around with wiki entries for shits and giggles.

If you want to buy something.......go to a store or dealership. These will never go away.


No one "needs" the internet for anything other then convenience. The world/humanity survived and progressed just fine before the internet. A online connection is not a basic right or fundamental needed asset for a person to survive and thrive.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

No one thrives today without the internet. If you really feel otherwise, please leave it and thrive away.

 

[HeXen]

My list of who should not have the rights to use netz.

Hackers should not be entitled to it.
Malware authors should not be entitled to it
Copyright infringers should not be entitled to it
Scammers.......etc.

Now obviously the problem with that list is we can't always know who these people are. So i'm refferring to those who are caught doing such should not be entitled and if caught using a computer should be put to prison, hefty fines. Of course more worldwide laws put in place to catch these people as well.
These are the burdens of the internet society, they make us legit users experience more difficult. Much as criminals do in real life.

I suspect in 50 years from now, it will literally be impossible to live any kind of life, anywhere in the world except homeless life, without internet.

If you want news...read a newspaper or you can even listen to the radio or watch a television news report.

If you want knowledge.....go to a library and ::gasp:: check out some books and read ::gasp::. In a lot cases your information and views would be less tainted. In fact I know of a site that is filled with people who like to screw around with wiki entries for shits and giggles.

If you want to buy something.......go to a store or dealership. These will never go away.


No one "needs" the internet for anything other then convenience. The world/humanity survived and progressed just fine before the internet. A online connection is not a basic right or fundamental needed asset for a person to survive and thrive.

your right, except one problem....why do you apparantly have an internet connection? i hope your not hypocrite, so i assume your just "borrowing" a friends connection right? otherwise, your opinion is complete hypocrosy

 

[Cogman]

nm

 

[werepossum]

Well put.

Thank you. I try.

 

[BoberFett]

So you'd have no issue with a federal Department of Internet Access to whom you applied for a license to use the Internet when you turned 21? (Taken away if you go over 10 points.) Of course, by your logic access to television, newspapers and radio is also a privilege, not a right. Those should be licensed as well - would really clean up the airwaves.

The issue here is two sided, and people are arguing completely different points.

1. Does a US citizen have the right to access the internet without the interference of the government?

2. Is the government obliged to provide an internet connection to any citizen who cannot or will not provide it for themselves?

Hopefully 1 is a unanimous yes and 2 is a nearly unanimous no. Hopefully.

 

[BoberFett]

your right, except one problem....why do you apparantly have an internet connection? i hope your not hypocrite, so i assume your just "borrowing" a friends connection right? otherwise, your opinion is complete hypocrosy

Are you a moron?

He said it's not a requirement for life. Not that he didn't enjoy having it as a luxury.

404 Hypocrisy Not Found

 

[werepossum]

The issue here is two sided, and people are arguing completely different points.

1. Does a US citizen have the right to access the internet without the interference of the government?

2. Is the government obliged to provide an internet connection to any citizen who cannot or will not provide it for themselves?

Hopefully 1 is a unanimous yes and 2 is a nearly unanimous no. Hopefully.

Agree totally. "Well said" right back at you.

 

[Tristicus]

So you'd have no issue with a federal Department of Internet Access to whom you applied for a license to use the Internet when you turned 21? (Taken away if you go over 10 points.) Of course, by your logic access to television, newspapers and radio is also a privilege, not a right. Those should be licensed as well - would really clean up the airwaves.

What the hell is wrong with you? It's clear what I'm saying, and if you can't get something as simple as that, then I give up. I don't know how many times I need to state my point clear as day.

 

[yllus]

What the hell is wrong with you? It's clear what I'm saying, and if you can't get something as simple as that, then I give up. I don't know how many times I need to state my point clear as day.

Any point you're trying to make is as clear as mud, and the reason for that is you posted this thread in a huff to go on about liberal excess when all the BBC poll found was (to borrow from VashHT) "80% of adults believe the government should not be able to inhibit our internet access."

Do you even now understand that that's quite different from declaring that residential Internet connections are something every citizen should be provided with? I doubt it, because after 86 posts to this thread you're still frothing at the mouth about conveniences versus necessities.

The issue here is two sided, and people are arguing completely different points.

1. Does a US citizen have the right to access the internet without the interference of the government?

2. Is the government obliged to provide an internet connection to any citizen who cannot or will not provide it for themselves?

Hopefully 1 is a unanimous yes and 2 is a nearly unanimous no. Hopefully.

Agreed. Jesus, why this is so hard for some to get I don't quite know.