Is the Internet a Right?

Excerpt from President Roosevelt's January 11, 1944 message to the Congress of the United States on the State of the Union:

It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.

For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.

I'm sorry John. I don't see how that correlates.

I might be wrong about the technical aspect, but I'm pretty sure the access control they are considering would be managed at the ISP level, not some optic cable router that plug's into the undersea cable ie; ISP to customer filtering only, not server-server filtering.

So as a result, I guess they are not regulating access to the internet, just the customer access service offered by companies providing it within that country.

You could (probably) for example set up your own ISP and access the internet yourself however you like, but once you started providing it to other's the legislation might start to require you to apply filter's by default and the adult content opt-in stuff.

So it wouldn't be taking away your right, just changing the conditions in which the government allowed business to profit from provision of particular services.

Correct, adder. And I don't recall agreeing to that change in the terms of service. Perhaps qualifying it as a breach of contract

All this is academic as I'm american, btw.

To compare the internet to water... is quite ludicrous. One is necessary for survival. One is a convenience that has just become so large we don't know what we'd do without it.

ludicroud=laughable, ridiculous That seems a little harsh..just say you disagree.

Water, we to pay for the service/utility for it to come to our house.

Internet, we to pay for the service/utility for it to come to our house.

lol. Please don't tell me what words to use. They are quite purposeful.

Water, we pay for the convenience of making it safe and inhouse. That's also a privilege.

Internet, we pay for the convenience of being able to use it at all. I remember the days when you needed a wired modem.

http://youtu.be/gaa9iw85tW8?t=4m20s

Skip to 4:20 if you want to get right to the bit on rights

Connor Lidell wrote: lol. Please don't tell me what words to use. They are quite purposeful.
.

Just a polite suggestion , not sure what your purpose was in chooseing ludicrous?

I love F.D.R. one of my favorite Presidents!

When I cited the Bill of rights, it was not to question rather people should be able to access the internet. It is to point out that several things people claim to be rights really aren’t.

Do I agree with limiting access to things by a governing body in with the desire to protect a portion of a population from their own desires? No.

Do I think children need to have access to pornography? No.

Do I feel that it is the parent’s responsibility to rear their offspring in a manner that will ensure the child grows up to be a contributing member of a society? Yes.

Do I feel that people confuse rights with privileges on a regular basis? Yes.

Is the internet a right? No.

Is access to the internet a right? Yes.

If the internet were a right, then it’s mere existence would have to be insured by the government of that body of people for who it were a right. If access to the internet is a right for the modern man, then access shouldn’t be restricted. Does that mean that there can’t be sections which are regulated? No. Regulation does not equal censorship.

Wescli Wardest wrote: If access to the internet is a right for the modern man, then access shouldn’t be restricted. Does that mean that there can’t be sections which are regulated? No. Regulation does not equal censorship.

Can you perhaps explain this a little further in depth Wescli? I'm having difficulty understanding how you rationalize that if the internet is a right, access shouldn't be restricted. Yet you also claim that this doesn't mean that regulation is off limits.

How is regulation not restriction in its most basic sense?