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

Mon Jan 9 10:44:21 EST 2012

*"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."*

It's good to see someone with a legal education in the US argue this. I
agree, Paul. To say something is a right doesn't necessarily lead to the
conclusion that every single person, even those very well off from the
financial perspective, must receive a service from the state for free.

*"**The only issue I missed in Vinton’s statement is the mention of the
pharaonic amount of financing invested in ICTs and Internet broadband
infrastructure in DCs, in particular in Africa, and the huge sums paid by
the mobile phone users. A large part of this treasury is a misuse of
precious financial resources which could be otherwise spent on more vital
needs for the population."*
I completely disagree with this view for two reasons.
For one, as many have already pointed out, human rights, both freedom
rights and social rights, form an indivisible body. Their protection and
realization isn't leveled: it's impossible for a country to pretend to
implement the right to life flawlessly before it then moves on to
implementing the 'second most important right', as if there was a line of
rights and an order of complete implementation. Freedom of speech and
access to information is just as important in communities which suffer from
lack of food and water as it is in developed countries.
Second, one should not push for the notion that if some companies have a
profit to make due to the public spending in the realization of a human
need, then states should 'fear' making such need a human or constitutional
right. This would call countries to neglect health care because
pharmaceutical companies make money, to deny a right to housing because
contracting companies make money, to deny a right to water because
companies in that market are profitable, to forbid a right to education as
a result of the existence of large private education companies. In other
words, it's a fallacy.

*"**But, the real human rights behind access to internet already exist, and
they are related to freedom of expression and freedom of diffusion, as well
as right to dignity, equality, privacy,  education and participation (among
the most important). Access per se doesn’t make sense, because it is too
easily confused and confined  to technological hook-up (...)"*

It's possible to find relationships among all rights: education with
equality, freedom of expression with education, housing with right to life
etc. This alone is not a reason to deny the recognition of a right. The
reason a right to water is recognized in many constitutions despite the
fact that a right to life is also made explicit is that even though people
can't live without water, the two legal instruments don't cover the exact
same situations and it has been found, in experience, that providing for
these two rights in separate ensures a wider scope of protection. That is
why I believe a right to Internet access is not irrelevant just because
there's a right to freedom of expression. They don't cover the exact same
things. One can try and insist shamelessly on fitting current social
phenomena to older legal paradigms or one can accept that sometimes the
legal paradigm has to be changed.
Some people in this thread see the Internet as a mere technology. I
honestly don't expect anyone who holds that POV to understand Internet
access as a right - I wouldn't myself. But I believe, like some others
here, that the Internet isn't simply *a* technology. Furthermore, with this
in mind, it's not hard to see that a right to Internet access doesn't
entail merely a technological hook-up but also aspects like information
literacy.

* "**Internet is the best tool for democracy and guarantee of the
HR. not an HR itself."*

I can certainly see where the fellow discussants here are coming from when
they argue Internet is a tool and therefore not a human rights. I must
reiterate, however, that a strong school of human rights and fundamental
rights scholarship has argued that all rights are tools for allowing
individuals to realize their human dignity or to pursue their own
happiness. I don't see any human right as an end in itself. In my POV,
people don't want their human rights protected as an end in itself, they
want their human rights protected because of what this will enable them to
achieve or maintain. To argue otherwise would be to say that states are the
ones defining what people's goal in their lives is. I believe states help a
person reach his or her own personally-defined life purpose: each and
everyone here decides what their own dignity is and how and what they'll
need to be live happily. Human rights are all tools in that context.

Lastly, I must say (even though it's wrong to require people to gain
knowledge about something before they're allowed to express their views on
that subject) that I expected a person like Vinton Cerf (who I obviously
admire greatly) to interest himself at least a little in the huge body of
knowledge on human rights law that has been developed over several decades
(as Matthias rightfully pointed out) before arguing something in a NYT
op-ed. Cerf's declarations have a huge impact in international IG politics
and with such influence comes some responsibility. His complete disregard
for the conceptualization of human rights and civil rights has seriously
impaired the discussion of his article and his views.

Best,
Ivar

On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 09:58, Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> 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)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120109/476c2565/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