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

[Ginger Paque]

I am finding this discussion to be very interesting and illuminating.
Thanks to everyone. gp

Aldo Matteucci is not a member of the IGC, but he read Paul's comments, and
had this response which I think is worth sharing with the list.
(Aldo's latest Blog, "Are enabling technologies 'neutral'?" can be read at:
http://deepdip.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/are-enabling-technologies-neutral/ )


Mr. Letho writes: *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.*

The loose use of the term “right” is regrettable, but it is not my own
doing. A good point of departure in understanding the quandary is the US
DECLARATION of Independence, who also speaks of “inalienable rights” *“**We
hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness*:” Now these
“inalienable rights” were not enough to make slavery illegitimate in the
country. It took a civil war, and AMENDMENTS to the US Constitution for
this goal to be obtained.

The UNHDR is what its name purports to be – a DECLARATION. Strictly
speaking it has no legal standing in international law (and even less in
national law), even though the term “right” is used therein. The
declaratory character of the UNDHR is best understood in the context of its
creation. In 1948 the West was pressing for a legal title to Art. 1-19
(personal rights), and the Soviets were doing the same for Art. 22-25
(economic rights). The compromise is what we have now.

Conventions have been created under UNDHR, which have legal standing for
the parties.

Mr. LETHO goes on as follows: *“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.”*

I have not raised this issue. Indeed economic capacity may be a practical
prerequisite for exercising personal rights. This is why FDR proposed a
“Second Bill of (Economic) Rights” in 1944 – to guarantee the economic
basis for personal rights. He never got anywhere, and there is no "right"
to a job despite it being a “right” under UNDHR.

Finally Mr. LETHO writes: “*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.”*

In the current context of international law, the source of rights is
exclusively the sovereign state. It either accepts to be bound by an
international treaty or convention to which he is a party, or he acts on
his own volition. One may not claim an “inalienable right” in a national
court on the basis of the UNDHR – not in Myanmar, China, nor the US.

So the whole discussion over whether internet access is a “human right” of
a “civil right” is pointless, and should be discontinued. It is a red
herring, artily thrown into the discussion. For all practical purposes it
is a “civil right” in the US and is covered by the First Amendment, just as
is the press, radio, or TV. To even raise the issue that it might be
excluded seems preposterous to me.

Whether the specificities of the net require special regulations is a
matter subordinate to the “civil right”.

At the international level I’d refrain from hectoring recalcitrant
governments with the statement that internet access is a “inalienable human
right”. I rather speak softly – if nothing else because of our own
hypocrisy. The UK was in the forefront of the drafting of the legally
binding EuCHR. The first case brought under this convention was the
treatment of prisoners by the British in Cyprus. They had to argue that the
EuCHR did not apply to Britain’s colonies.

Aldo

Ginger (Virginia) Paque
Diplo Foundation
www.diplomacy.edu/ig
VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu

*Join the Diplo community IG discussions: www.diplointernetgovernance.org*




On 9 January 2012 11:25, Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Ivar A. M. Hartmann <
> ivarhartmann at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> *"**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.
>>
>
> In fact, information-deficits have been found to be the very cause of
> famine in Africa, specifically a lack of information as to where available
> resources can be found.  Thus, failures of communication/speech can be both
> the cause and the cure of a deficit in an allegedly "more fundamental"
> right like food.  Other examples could be given.
>
> 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/20120109/70416d92/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