[Kosh]

Are phones basic human rights?

I take it by that sarcastic remark that you don't approve of common people being able to access to information. Stalin would be proud.

[Scotty]

Personally, I don't really approve of a provided service subject to all sorts of commercial law and what not being defined as a common right.  It can be legally taken away as a result of not being able to pay for it, and in many instances, not even available in the first place due to either monetary constraints or regional difficulties (mostly rural locations).  How can something be a right if not everyone has access to it in the first place, especially since it's being called a BASIC Human Right.

@Kosh:  Wow.  Sarcastic question = Stalin would be proud?  Not following.

[Nuclear1]

Funny, Scotty, how much that is similar to health care right now.

While the internet itself certainly isn't a basic human right, the ideas the internet encompasses certainly are basic political and human rights--such as the right to information and self-expression--and it also, to the nth degree, facilitates other rights--the right to peaceful assembly and voicing concerns.

Your argument falters because you say that since something is labeled a right, it is without limit.  You can't think like that--to the positive side of every right, there is a way it can be used for the wrong reasons.  Freedom of speech has the classic example of yelling fire in a crowded theater. Assembly has the potential to turn into a destructive riot, and press can be used to spread reputation-destroying lies.  That's why we have limits on these rights.

So basically, no, the internet should not be a government-subsidized life-or-death right as food, shelter, and healthcare, but it must be held in very high regard as an important political and civil right.

[castor]

How can something be a right if not everyone has access to it in the first place, especially since it's being called a BASIC Human Right.

The whole concept of "rights" would be unnecessary if everyone always had access to them.

[Blue Lion]

Are phones basic human rights?

I take it by that sarcastic remark that you don't approve of common people being able to access to information. Stalin would be proud.

Then why don't they just say "access to information is a human right"?

[Kosh]

Because the internet is a medium for accessing information, and in fact with the internet now we can access more information than ever before.

@Kosh:  Wow.  Sarcastic question = Stalin would be proud?  Not following.

Because his statement made it clear that mass communication and information dissemination should be restricted.

[Blue Lion]

Because the internet is a medium for accessing information, and in fact with the internet now we can access more information than ever before.

So is TV, or Radio, or newspapers, or magazines. Are these things human rights?

I'm just curious as to what this is designed to do? It doesn't say you have the right to access whatever you want, right?

Were people not allowed to get on the internet in France before?

Also my point wasn't that it should be restricted (it absolutely should be) it was why this one particular medium was singled out.

[Mikes]

It's unfortunate and counterproductive to call "internet access" a human right.

Call it "right for free information" or just state that you will work towards giving everyone internet access...

... but there is a problem with calling it a "human right".

Human rights have a very specific purpouse. They define the rights that every human being, no matter where, or how they life, "should" have.
If you keep tacking on things like "internet" access it starts becoming a construct that may be considered "unrealistic" by some.
Furthermore if "lack of internet access" violates "human rights" now... just like say , "torture" does... it degrades the whole idea and importance of the concept.


I.e. by tacking on countless things to the label of "human rights" you are starting to hurt concept as a whole.
It's muddling the definition of what human rights actually are and questions their importance, which should be above any kind of question as a matter of principle. Internet access... is kinda counterproductive here.

Should everyone have acess to information ? absolutely i agree... but for godsake, CALL the notion something OTHER than human rights.

On the other hand: Yay to the Court for squashing idiot policies that hard LOL.

[Ghostavo]

Because the internet is a medium for accessing information, and in fact with the internet now we can access more information than ever before.

So is TV, or Radio, or newspapers, or magazines. Are these things human rights?

I'm just curious as to what this is designed to do? It doesn't say you have the right to access whatever you want, right?

Were people not allowed to get on the internet in France before?

Also my point wasn't that it should be restricted (it absolutely should be) it was why this one particular medium was singled out.

It was singled out because the proposed law was about internet access.

No one proposed that if people steal TVs, radios, newspapers or magazines, that they would be deprived of having access to these (like everyone else, not in the subsidized kind of way). However it was proposed that this would happen to the internet if someone committed illegal downloads.

[Blue Lion]

Because the internet is a medium for accessing information, and in fact with the internet now we can access more information than ever before.

So is TV, or Radio, or newspapers, or magazines. Are these things human rights?

I'm just curious as to what this is designed to do? It doesn't say you have the right to access whatever you want, right?

Were people not allowed to get on the internet in France before?

Also my point wasn't that it should be restricted (it absolutely should be) it was why this one particular medium was singled out.

It was singled out because the proposed law was about internet access.

No one proposed that if people steal TVs, radios, newspapers or magazines, that they would be deprived of having access to these (like everyone else, not in the subsidized kind of way). However it was proposed that this would happen to the internet if someone committed illegal downloads.

So is it a human right because someone tried to curtail it or are all the others human rights that haven't been challenged yet?

[Kosh]

So is it a human right because someone tried to curtail it or are all the others human rights that haven't been challenged yet?

More or less. Stalin would be pleased with your attitude about this.

[MP-Ryan]

I'm loving that you guys are debating a ruling that doesn't exist.  First off, we're dealing with a translation and I'm not looking up the original text.  Second, here's what the article itself actually says:

They ruled that "free access to public communication services online" is a right laid down in the Declaration of Human Rights, which is in the preamble to the French constitution. It also said the law breached privacy by enabling the HADOPI agency to track people's internet activity.

It agreed that the law reached the separation of powers because if gave an administrative authority power to impose justice. And to boot, it violated the presumption of innocence because alleged pirates would be cut off without being able to defend themselves, the council said.  

The court is saying that:
1.  Free access [by which they actually mean freedom OF access, not monetarily-free] to "public communication services" [meaning government websites, news agencies, etc] online [a medium] is a right guaranteed by the Declaration of Human Rights.  For the legal-speak challenged among us, that means that the government cannot restrict the ability of citizens to access public information through a particular medium.  It does not mean that access to the global internet is a basic human right like some of you are choosing to interpret it.

2.  The law is in violation of rights because it allows an "administrative body" [meaning a body without legal recourse or standing and not adhering to legal standards of evidence] to impose justice and arbitrarily track [the word arbitrary was left out, but it is important because non-arbitrary tracking of Internet usage as authorized by the courts is quite legal] the internet usage of private citizens.  That's a violation of the right to liberty, which is enshrined in the consitution/rights legislation of most democratic nations.

Essentially, it's not that Internet access is a basic human right, but that freedom of information and the expectation of privacy are fundamental human rights which cannot be infringed except in accordance with the fundamental principles of justice, which an administrative body does not adhere to.

So quit debating "internet access is a basic human right."  That isn't what the court said or meant, and it makes you look ridiculous to argue over it.

[General Battuta]

MP-Ryan is entirely correct, and given that this point was made earlier in the thread (by myself amongst others) I hope that you folks will incorporate that into your arguments.

[Blue Lion]

So is it a human right because someone tried to curtail it or are all the others human rights that haven't been challenged yet?

More or less. Stalin would be pleased with your attitude about this.

So would every other rational person alive.

And it was an "either/or" not "all of the above"

[Kosh]

Essentially, it's not that Internet access is a basic human right, but that freedom of information and the expectation of privacy are fundamental human rights which cannot be infringed except in accordance with the fundamental principles of justice, which an administrative body does not adhere to.

That was what I was argueing about, hence my Stalin would be pleased remark about blue lion's resistance to it.

[Blue Lion]

Essentially, it's not that Internet access is a basic human right, but that freedom of information and the expectation of privacy are fundamental human rights which cannot be infringed except in accordance with the fundamental principles of justice, which an administrative body does not adhere to.

That was what I was argueing about, hence my Stalin would be pleased remark about blue lion's resistance to it.

I don't recall voicing any resistance to it. Oh wait, you were just mad I didn't immediately throw myself to my knees and yell "yay intarwebs!" so you called me Stalin. Cute

[Kosh]

Please read what I wrote, nowhere did I call you anything.

[Blue Lion]

Ah so you agree with me then and take back what you said? Awesome.

[Arixo]

The explanation of MP-Ryan is very accurate about the main points of this law. I think we may add a 3) corresponding to the last sentence of the quote :

And to boot, it violated the presumption of innocence because alleged pirates would be cut off without being able to defend themselves, the council said. 

In the law,  if your IP is detected to download something illegal you are punished without any further proof. So people opposing the law argued it was possible, and not that hard, to make another IP appear instead of yours, which means that you can be punished instead of someone else even if you are innocent. The government answered that it is up to you to prove you are innocent by installing a kind of "government's spyware" on your computer to show you didn't do anything illegal ! I think this is really unbelievable and illustrates quite well the way Sarkozy uses his power.

The good point is that many young french people, when they heared about this law, learned how to hide their IP, crack wifis, etc  !

[karajorma]

* karajorma loves the way that this thread is full of people arguing their stupid interpretation of the ruling even after Flipside and MP-Ryan have gone out of their way to explain what it really means to them.