Even for nonpayment of cable bills? “The United Nations has declared Internet access a human right, and disconnecting people from it is against international law.” [Stan Schroeder, Mashable]
More: According to some commenters, what’s going on here is an assertion only of liberty rights (authorities should not block access) and not of affirmative welfare rights to internet access. Accepting this view for the basis of argument, there still arises the question of whether commonly encountered terms of service will now be at risk of being declared contrary to international law; per news coverage, some advocates hope the new initiative will bar closing the accounts of distributors of pirated music etc., and one can readily imagine parallel claims by email spammers, launchers of DDOS attacks and other controversial classes of users.
8 Comments
I assume they are referring to the porn sites. đŸ™‚
Typical stupidity. The corollary of this is that it is illegal NOT to provide someone with Internet access!
Seriously? Did anyone read the article or better yet the report? The report is talking about governments. Access includes public access such as libraries and other public terminals. The primary issue discussed is censorship by governments.
Now if you want to complain, see the exceptions listed in the report (section 25). Despite the claim that they are only exceptional situations, they are broad enough to pretty much allow governments to censor at will. Making the report pointless.
“International Law” needs to be in sneer quotes, as it’s a mythical beast.
A lot of what is considered essential rights today, was considered a luxury not too many years ago.
Wait, so now this blog is *for* government inhibition of free speech? I’m confused.
Perhaps you should read the article and rethink this post.
Craig,
Yes, some of us have read the report.
You are correct that it does talk about government shutdowns of the internet. However, it also talks about governmental funding of internet and wireless nets.
The report is based on the idea that freedom of speech is a basic human right. Because the internet is used to spread “free speech,” governments should not restrict speech on the net, but should also fund and maintain nets to support that speech.
It is there that the UN makes a fundamental mistake. A “right” and the “service” to exercise that right are not the same thing. The UN tries to say they are.
“Accepting this view for the basis of argument, there still arises the question of whether commonly encountered terms of service will now be at risk of being declared contrary to international law”
Huh??
I read this report as simply advocating the expansion of human rights norms. It’s about a million miles away from forming the basis of any sort of intervention based on any sort of “international law”. It’s not the basis of any sort of treaty or international agreement. No nation has signed on to it. You do know that a UN policy committee does not make international law unilaterally.
So, even if it was adopted enthusiastically by the UN and became part of the discourse on human rights, what would the impact be on any nation’s domestic law? Do you think the UN simply alters domestic law this way?
And what does the scary statement “declared against international law” mean anyway? What international law? Declared by whom? Enforced by whom?
Boy you do like to leap headlong down the slippery slope, and get the rabble roused, don’t you.
And what terms of service do you mean? Certainly, not non-payment of your cable bill, as your original post insinuates.