[governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR

[Paul Lehto]

On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> What Mr. Cerf said ("Internet access is not a human right" [1]) is not
> unusual; it is something many of us discuss, even (horrors) agree with. The
> value of his editorial is in the debate it has catalyzed. [...]
>
> Mr. Matteucci makes an excellent point that “'Human rights' are not
> self-executing: they represent legitimate aspirations – not obligations",
> [...]
>

The statement that "human rights [represent] legitimate aspirations - not
obligations" is a contradiction.  Rights are obligations that governments *must
respect*, at least providing due process of law prior to depriving anyone
of an alienable right, and not able to deprive the right at all, even with
due process, if the right is inalienable.   For Mr. Matteucci to define
rights as mere aspirations is dangerous because it lowers the entire class
of rights to the status of a mere hope or aspiration.

>
> Under the UN Declaration on Human Rights[2] (UNDHR), we all have a set of
> inalienable human rights, no matter who we are, no matter where we live.
> What we may or may not have is the ability to exercise these rights. The
> exercise of these rights may be legally interrupted because we have broken
> the law. They may be illegally (or legally in exceptional circumstances)
> interrupted by government action or decree. Or their exercise may be
> supported or hindered by selective legal and/or practical implementation.
> State sovereignty allows each country to establish its own triage to *apply
> their funds and energies as they see fit. *We cannot decide for another
> whether water, food or information are their highest priorities, so their
> application or practical administration must be a local or regional issue.
> What the UN and others can do is (attempt to) ensure that the the
> implementation (exercise) of human rights is not prohibited.
>

Sovereign states may not apply their funds and energies "as they see fit"
if they wish to practice genocide or other violations of human RIGHTS.

>
> Our rights are protected under the UNDHR. Their exercise, as both Mr. Cerf
> and Mr. Matteucci agree, often, and in the case of Internet, undoubtedly,
> rely on technology. Although access to information will help solve other
> ills, the triage priority assigned to Internet access is not as clear cut
> as 'breathing, bleeding, beating'. If Finland can manage to make Internet
> access a legal right, congratulations, and more power to the Finnish.  But
> if another country must make safe water, food and medicine a higher
> priority, I can understand that. I think we must be concerned about the
> hindrance or prohibition of the exercise of any human rights, as we work
> towards the local implementation, in the way we each have set our
> priorities.
>

There is a great confusion in this thread generally between the existence
of a right and the practical means to carry it out.  I have the right to
speak politically but lack the funds to purchase television ads.  This lack
of funds reduces my power as a political speaker but does not mean I do not
have a political speech right.

The existence of a right is still meaningful even if I or others can't
afford the practical means of exercising the right at the present time.
For example, the existence of the right means that governments may not
arbitrarily terminate access to the internet (when considered a right)
because of race, sex, creed, color, religion or other arbitrary reasons. If
access to the internet is a mere privilege (not a right), then the worst
abuses of government that everyone on this list opposes are legally
permissible, and all we can say against these abuses are relatively very
weak policy and aspirational arguments that amount to saying "someday, when
things are better, we hope this abuse won't happen any more."

When something is a right, its practical exercise may not occur because of
the personal *choice* of the right-holder, the personal *means* of the
right-holder, or the *outside actions* of third parties such as
government.  When third parties like government deny the exercise of a
right, then the persons affected have *a claim for VIOLATION of the
right*-- a strong platform from which to fight -- as opposed to vague
complaints
based on mere aspirations.  It's therefore quite important to be able to
argue violation of a right as opposed to denial of one's aspirations.

The FUNDING of the practical exercise of a right is usually, but not
always, a severable or separate issue.  This depends on whether the right
is non-derogable or not.  Certain rights are so fundamental that states
must GUARANTEE them.  (Right against genocide, for example)   These
guarantees include the funding necessary to guarantee the right, so states
must expend, as a top priority, the funds necessary to prevent genocide.

The debate, then, is whether freedom of speech is so fundamental that it is
a non-derogable right, at least for those not in prison after due process
of law.  IN large part, political speech is non-derogable, as states may
not suspend political speech related to elections by completely defunding
or making media communications illegal.  But does a government have to
support the access of certain individual citizens with lesser means to
access the internet for political speech-rights purposes?  This depends on
the existence of meaningful alternative means of exercising the right.  IF
it is found that lack of access to the internet would very substantially
impede exercise of political speech rights and that the alternative methods
of expression are inadequate, then a state must expend the funds or take
the actions necessary to faciliate political speech rights.

Usually the nations that are in a position of having to make very difficult
financial choices between things like water or infrastructure do NOT have
electronic communications systems that are so pervasive that there are no
meaningful alternatives to political speech via the internet, so as a
practical matter this conflict is somewhat unlikely to arise.  But still,
it is quite important indeed to recognize that internet access for speech
purposes is a right even if not everyone can afford it, and even if the
government is not obliged to fund it because there are other ways to
express the right of political speech in that particular situation.

Paul Lehto, J.D.

>
>
> --
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1
Ishpeming, MI  49849
lehto.paul at gmail.com
906-204-4026 (cell)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120109/b24c1d6c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t