|
Soapbox Philosophy: U.N. stumbles on definition of ‘right’ idea
by Gregory R. Norfleet · Op-Ed · June 22, 2011
How much freedom of opinion and expression relates to the Internet?
According to a United Nations report released earlier this month, it is a violation of international law to cut people off from access to the Internet.
Specifically, Frank La Rue, special rapporteur of the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, states that Internet access is a human right.
The U.N. busies itself with trying to address international problems and work toward peace and development, so, naturally, the Internet has been hugely important to pass messages of genocide, oppression, starvation, corruption, etc. across the borders of communist and dictatorial countries.
La Rue’s report follows decisions by France and the United Kingdom to pass laws which bar convicted copyright violators from the Internet. But it also follows news from countries like China, Syria and Egypt which shut down the Internet to quell political unrest (think Arab Spring).
However, La Rue’s blanket rebuke does not consider fundamental differences in the two scenarios which should lead to an entirely different approach in how he measures the value of the Internet.
The motivation behind his report is to give more power to the people, to which I fully subscribe as there is not a single government on earth that would not improve with more public scrutiny.
As far as France and the United Kingdom, though, those countries are leveling a penalty in response to individual crime. Keep in mind that these copyright convicts can receive this punishment and never see the inside of a prison cell. That means they have the freedom to write books, write letters to the editor, organize a grass-roots movement, or even try to convince someone else to post their ideas to the Internet for them.
The Internet has only been around since the 1960s, and even as recently as 20 years ago, barring a private citizen from the Internet would have meant next to nothing.
The Internet is a great tool and takes communication to levels never dreamt before its time. But it is not, as La Rue states, “indispensable.” It is certainly not a right.
When the U.S. Declaration of Independence ensures “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” it ensures three things that ought to exist whether technology puts us in the Communication Age or the Stone Age. Stating that Internet access is a human right is akin to stating that owning a car or house is a human right. It sounds nice, but it’s nonsense.
As for the examples of China, Syria and Egypt, their actions assume everyone is guilty until proven innocent: There’s no due process, the people are the problem, government is always right. That way of thinking repulses anyone who understands the value of freedom and what we consider basic human rights.
I agree that the U.N. is an appropriate entity to argue that governments ought not to partake in massive Internet blackouts. The Internet ought not to become the property of any government as it is a combined project that connects networks of networks from the government, private individuals, religious groups, private businesses, private organizations and academic groups.
The government is responsible for only a fraction of its content, and commandeering the Internet is like taking over all of the gas stations or coffee shops — they are simply not the government’s to take. The people and businesses and organizations in any country ought to rise up against such government intrusion, power grabs and theft.
However, cyberspace operates through physical property and most of its users don’t own the networking equipment that makes it work — we sign up for subscription services. When a country shuts down the Internet, it is taking power over the property of a few owners, not every user. I’m not saying this is right or should be legal, but for most of us we would simply stop paying for the service and the government would owe us nothing more. For the subscribers, the Internet is not a right. For the network owners, their rights only extend to their own property, not the connectivity.
La Rue’s argument is that the Internet is a basic human right because of its “characteristics, such as its speed, worldwide reach and relative anonymity.” However these traits are irrelevant to third-world countries where residents have a hard enough time finding food to worry about whether they should get dial-up or broadband.
La Rue is confused. What he is describing is the essence of an idea, not the medium which carries it. He is mistaking the messenger for the message.
It is the idea — text, photographs, video, music or artwork — that gives the Internet its power. Without a message, the Internet is nothing. It is a superhighway without travelers.
La Rue is correct that the Internet is powerful and fast. But there are millions of ideas — scientific, religious, medicinal, philanthropic, etc. — that spread like wildfire long before the Internet and still shape our world today.
We all have ideas. Government doesn’t even bother to give us a right to them because there’s nothing they can do to stop an idea. But recognizing the freedom to express those ideas, to share those messages, that must be — must be — a human right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
