Internet Access - a human right?

In light of Finland recentely making access to the internet a human right, I think it's a good time to discuss the application of this in the UK, particularly considering the 'three strikes' policy and the potential for access to be cut off. This is my opinion and then the floor is open.

Personally, I think that internet access should not be a human right. Though I think that our government should do it's utmost to make web access as widespread as possible, such as funding poorer countries in getting connected via ISPs, it's plain to see that our first priority should be to give these people food, clothes and shelter before we start to put in luxuries like internet. Certainly having access to the internet improves the quality of life, helping, among other things, education, but it is, nevertheless, a non-essential thing.

Human rights, by their very nature and definition, guarantee the basic needs of a human to be free, equal and, perhaps most importantly, to survive. I fail to see, in any way, how being deprived of a web connection cuts off anything vital to survival or liberty. You may say that the internet is a form of free expression and, thus, can't be taken away, but the web is just one method in a plethora of expressive outlets. If you can't write a blog, write a book instead. Certainly, if for some reason the UK (or any country) was deprived of access to the internet, it would have terrible effects for the country (particularly business and economy), but we wouldn't feel degraded as humans, Amnesty International wouldn't petition for us to be reunited with our Facebook profiles, there are so many more important things to have.

It bugs me no end when people start banging the "web access is a human right" drum because it has a degree of selfishness. Are we so spoilt that we aren't happy being guaranteed our basic needs and now insist on adding products and luxuries to the list? Even at a time when many people around the world are forced to go without these rights.

I should add that I disagree entirely with the policies to cut off the internet of 'illegal filesharers' (not pirates, yarr) but not, as you can gather, because I feel that it should be in our rights. There are many, many reasons (as Ian Morris put very well) why the 'three strikes' policy is ridiculous and generally wrong, but the idea that we need the internet for our very survival is not among them.

I think I've exhausted my point in an inarticulate and probably simplistic manner, such is my mind, but as I said, this is what I feel though I know many disagree. Anyone up for discussion?

I think internet access should be a human right.

I'll explain by means of responding with counter arguments to your points.

I would say that the internet is no longer a luxury. As technology evolves the internet is going to replace the normal telephone. Nobody can deny the important of communications. This is reflected in the existence of NGO's such as Communcations Sansfrontierers who arrive in disaster areas, and besides helping to coordinate resources via the internet, make internet connections available so that people can contact their relatives via email. and VOIP if possible.

Survival, perhaps not, but if you think about being able to look up medical information, then perhaps so. However liberty is most definitely enhanced by the internet. This is because the internet is, at its core, a communication system, and this naturally leads to the dissemination of information, and thus education. Therefore, the internet has the ability to ensure people's liberty by informing and educating.

I respectfully suggest that there are some aspects you have over looked. E.g. the internet isn't just about publishing/expressing content, it is also about finding and taking in information, see my above point. Also, the internet isn't just the web, with regards to your Facebook example. The web affords certain social luxuries such as Facebook, but the primary goal is to obtain information and ensure communication, and there are a plethora of ways to do this, which, IMHO, MUST be safeguarded for all.

Again, the web in and of itself is not a luxury. If you want to ask the question of where to draw the line between basic and luxury content, then base it on page size. If I had to choose between whether the whole world lost access to Wikipedia or Facebook, then Wikipedia wins everytime. I would say that access to such information, as Wikipedia, or anything else that informs and empowers individuals are a necessary human right. Sure, they're not within the traditional sense of human rights, but in this new age of information technology, human rights need an upgrade.

It should be on par with the right to electricity

I think that parts of the Internet should be. I don't think that anyone (Except maybe Nate) NEEDS something like Cheezburger to get on with their daily lives.

Thanks DavidRGilson for your counter arguements, I'll admit that I was in a bit of a hurry when i wrote this and may not expressed myself fully.

The problem is that if you allow one form of communication or information gathering, then you have to open the doors to the rest. We can also gather information from books, should we have a right to them? We can communicate through phones, should we have a right to them? If you concede that certain aspects of the internet are non-essential, then you have to consider by what criteria do we select websites that we have a right to? Who would decide such a thing? Would Facebook start sueing left right and centre if Wikipedia was made a human right and it wasn't?

Like I said, we should strive to bring the internet to as many people as we can and I pray (even though I'm an atheist) that we never lose internet access en mass for a long time or permantently as it is an amazing resource and tool. But I don't think, in any way, that it should be made a legal right because then you open the floodgates, should we have a right to tv, because we can watch documentaries?

If, for whatever reason, we lost the internet. Then companies would suffer, government would have massive problem with systems and a lot of things would go wrong. But on a personal, day-to-day, on a HUMAN level, we could cope, the Internet was 40 on Thursday, so we've managed to get by some 5 billion years previous without the internet.

I would contest that the most frivolous aspects of the world wide web use the most bandwidth. Therefore, I think if you wanted to have the compromise position of having internet access as a human right, but at the same time reducing it to a minimum level, then you could do it on a bandwidth cap basis.

This is not to say that I agree with bandwidth caps, but I'm talking about places where connectivity is a rare commodity and thus a precious resource. E.g. for the data used by five minutes of Youtube, you could download an entire syllabus of something to study in pictures and text.

Do I think books and communication devices should be a human right? Damn right I do, I think for the good of all, it has to the be the right of every individual to have access to send and receive information. This is the only way learn from each other, and by learning we are all empowered.

I would say access to information should be a human right as recording information so later generations can built upon that foundation is one of the few things that separates us from every other species

If everyone is given access to the internet then who is going to pay for the equipment to allow them to use it?

Just thought I'd throw that point out there..