Dr. Mark Mitchell gives a good analysis of the recent UN discussions regarding making internet access a human right. There’s just one more fundamental point that, I think, needs to be made in this discussion.
Declaring internet access a human right takes away from the universality of human rights. Not only are those in areas or countries deprived of this right, but those who have never heard of internet are unable to identify the meaning of this right. Life, liberty, and property are foundational – necessarily dealt with in some way by every society across every era. The same with food, education, support for the elderly, religion, speech, and the list goes on. Internet access? Not so much. It is not rooted in humanity's nature.
It also makes human rights developmental. No longer are human rights something that is connected to being human, it is connected to a particular technological era. Rights theory, at least in its original form, dealt with those things that are inherent in humanity, that every person has a right to by virtue of being human. To deprive them of such is to detract from their humanity. With the advancement of internet access, we can now say that we are more human than any previous generation.
Notice that the actor here is technological advancement, the new grantor of human rights. Declaring internet access, thus, not only waters down the “rights” part, but also gets the “human” part wrong as well.
Not sure how many of those mentioned are any different than the internet. Education? What defines education? Advances in technologies radically change what is or is not education. For some, education is best delivered through the internet. Same for speech or property.
ReplyDeleteThe problem isn't what is or is not a human right. The problem is that people are regularly denied rights or other devices that make survival easier. How many people are routinely denied the human right of food?
This also brings up the question of whether "human rights" are something to be protected, or something to be provided. Is it the responsibility of governments (and individuals) to refrain from restricting access to liberty, food, property, etc? Or are they responsible for the direct provision of those commodities? Does the freedom of speech grant me an audience? Does the right to bear arms necessiate that I be furnished a gun? Does freedom of assembly require others to associate with me?
ReplyDeleteI appreciate having access to the internet, free of restriction. But if internet access is a basic human right, are governments to be condemned of being "human rights violators" if they don't provide free high-speed wireless to people who can't afford it? or live in remote areas with insufficient infrastructure to support it?
I'll get in trouble for asking this, but.... Do human beings actually have "rights" in the modern sense? At all?
ReplyDelete