<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>
Hi all,<br><div>we should separate HUMAN RIGHT to A RIGHT TO,</div><div>In some states in USA "HAVING A WEAPON IS A RIGHT" does it mean that this is a HUMAN RIGHT ?</div><div><br></div><div>I'm not against the fact that INTERNET could be considered as a HUMAN RIGHT but since it's a tool</div><div>that could be complicated...</div><div><br></div><div>Let's consider the freedom of expression:</div><div><ul><li>If i have not an internet access i can use a mobile phone</li><li>If i have not a mobile phone i can use an Off phone (fixed)</li><li>If i have not an off phone i can write a letter...</li></ul><div><br></div><div>This is to say that to express this right " freedom of expression" i'have many tools I HAVE THE CHOICE... </div></div><div>the smoke was even used by Indians (America) in the past to communicate...</div><div><br></div><div>Let consider Internet:</div><div><ul><li>If i have not an internet access HOW CAN I EXPRESS THIS RIGHT ? TROUBLE...</li></ul><div><br></div></div><div>Some countries can consider INTERNET ACCESS as a RIGHT but as a "HUMAN RIGHT" that will be complicated </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div><br></div><br><br><br><font style="font-family: Tahoma;" color="#00007f"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 127);"></span></font><hr style="font-family: Tahoma; width: 100%; height: 2px;"><font style="font-family: Tahoma;" color="#00007f"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 127);"></span></font><font style="" color="#00007f"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 127);"><font style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;" size="4"><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">Brice ABBA</span></font><br>
<font size="3"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-style: italic;">Ingénieur en Sciences Informatiques</span><br style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,Serif; font-style: italic;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">mob: (+225)-08-607-228</span><br style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,Serif;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">
fix(home): (+225)-23-512-912</span></font>
</span></font><span style="font-family: bookman old style,new york,times,serif;"></span><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 0, 127); font-family: 'bookman old style','new york',times,serif;"><font style="font-style: italic;" size="3"><span style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif;"></span></font></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 127); font-family: 'bookman old style','new york',times,serif;"><font style="font-style: italic;" size="3"><span style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif;"></span></font></span><font style="font-family: Tahoma;" color="#00007f"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 127);"></span></font><br><br><div><div id="SkyDrivePlaceholder"></div><hr id="stopSpelling">Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 12:25:07 -0500<br>Subject: Re: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR<br>From: lehto.paul@gmail.com<br>To: governance@lists.cpsr.org; briceabba@hotmail.com<br>CC: gpaque@gmail.com<br><br>On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Brice Abba <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:briceabba@hotmail.com">briceabba@hotmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="ecxgmail_quote"><blockquote class="ecxgmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div><div dir="ltr">
Hi All,<div>Since Internet can be considered as a tool i agree with Vint CERT...</div><div>in the same way even if "<span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: arial,sans-serif;"><span>safety and</span> <span>resistance to oppression" is a human right</span></span></div>
<div><font color="#333333" face="arial, sans-serif">having a weapon (tool) is not one...</font></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br>So then one may have a right of self-defense, but no right to use "tools" of any kind (no right to use weapons, rocks, pepper spray, locked doors, etc) <br>
<br>One may have a right of free speech, but no right to use "tools" in its furtherance. (no right to use typewriters, internet, loudspeakers or radio or tv access) <br><br>One may have a right to life but no right to use "tools" in furtherance of life. (no right to use medicines, doctors, herbal remedies, or books containing knowledge about life...) <br>
<br>The idea that one may sever the "tools" to utilize or enjoy a right from the right itself completely destroys the right, in principle.<br><br>I have previously posted that whether or not a person has a right to exercise a right by a particular "tool" depends on things OTHER THAN the fact that something is a tool by which one exercises the right. For just one example, it depends on whether other meaningful avenues exist to exercise the right.<br>
<br>Take "tools" away from human beings and you've reduced them to the status of naked animals, perhaps with the addition of verbal language. But without tools to disseminate the verbal language, a human is in a form of communication exile, akin to talking only to one's self or perhaps a tiny number of people in one's physical presence. After all, an auditorium with a lectern or a loudspeaker or leaflets are all "tools" of communication.<br>
<br>Some would like to say that the "tools" one uses to exercise a right are frozen in time and don't include "modern" tools. This could limit self-defense to hands only, and speech could be confined to the home and perhaps the streetcorner. Once again, whether a modern "tool" is protectable as a means to exercise a right depends not on its status as a "tool" or a "technology" but on how prevalent the tool is, how important for the meaningful exercise of the right, and the availability of alternative channels for exercise of the right that are at least approximately equal in effectiveness.<br>
<br>Paul Lehto, J.D.<br></div></div><br></div> </div></body>
</html>