JeremyNJ1984 wrote:
Natty_Boh wrote:
Oodain wrote:
JeremyNJ1984 wrote:
Not really sure what to make of this....Sure..having access to the Internet on a regular basis gives one a heads up. Its probably much more difficult to function without the Internet in the developed world such as Western Europe, the US, Canada, etc..But I don't see how it is a basic necessity of life in less technologically and culturally different parts of the world. Perhaps one day it will become a resource most needed, but I don't think as of right now it should be considered a " right"....having access to the internet should be like having access to a car, a priviledge. With it, comes responsibilty. A " right" should be reliable access to food, water, sanitation, civil liberties, etc....the Internet itself is something one can function without and not lose sleep over.
the internet is the developed world today, nothing would work were it gone tomorrow, the credit crunch would be childs play compared to the havoc it would bring.
But we've made ourselves dependent on it. It's essential, in the 1st World anyway, but not precisely a 'right'.
Exactly...having access to a car seems essential to function in society, but does that mean everyone should have the right to own a car? I need refrigeration for supermarket food..does having access to a refrigerator accrue it as a " right"? the Internet is not going to replace local businesses as the means of production. So I don't see the drastic necessity of calling access to the Internet a " right"....it also fails to mention who is going to end up paying for the fiber optic cables, servers, etc that come along with it...some poor african herder sure wont fork over the money needed. Seems like its going to be coming out of the pockets of 1st world countries.
in that you are free to go buy any such item if you have the money that argument is a bit flawed,
an uncensored international internet cannot be bought for money, making legislation neccesary.
the internet already changed the local means of production adn demand in the whole world, to say it wont go further is quite daring.
who is gonna pay?
for one, most small societies in the third world would have all the conectivity they need for a village in sattelite comunications (how much do you think that would cost if launched as part of an existing space network?), making the argument about infrastructure void, a global free sattelite network would make basic conectivity a matter of personal choice more than it is today.
the places that need much higher bandwidth ae usually population or industrial centers, places where that ifrastructure, to a large extent, is already in place, it is possible to do with relatively few investments, that being said personally this was far from what i thought of when i meant it was a human right, more along the lines of "no one can deny you" as in "no one can deny you your opinion" you might not have one but you have the right.
but to be honest i dont see this as the major issue, as stated i think that the intent of the ruling is to make censorship a breach of human right, sometyhing i can only endorse.
_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//
the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.
06 Jun 2011, 4:33 pm
