I agree that if done properly (as in, those given internet for the first time are also taught how to use it - mainly, how to sift through misinformation), then universal internet access for everyone in the world would be immensely beneficial. This should be considered a top priority for all privileged countries and people who have the ability to share this information tool with the rest of the world. Some support for this idea presented by Kostas included the story of Neda Agha, who was shot and killed by Iranian forces simply for demonstrating. This was the most widely viewed death in human history, thanks to the internet. However, it strengthened the revolution in Iran so much that the government decided to "turn off" the internet. Some say this lack of internet was one of the main factors leading to the slow down and eventual stop of the revolution.
A similar case was after Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, and a project ensued to bring free wifi to everyone on the streets. Chris Drake, the WiFi Project Manager for New Orleans, said "You would have thought you were bringing starving people food from the reaction on the street."
In another part of the world, internet is also viewed similarly as a human right by Michael Somare, the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea, who said “We envision to empower our people…through the power of information to enhance their quality of life and to be on par with their peers in developed urban centres and peoples of this world."
Many of the above examples present internet access not only as a powerful and influential source of information, but also as a driving force for revolution, a means by which to enhance quality of life, and even as comparable to "food for starving people." Still, I find it hard to convince myself that access to the internet can actually be considered a basic human right rather than simply an amazing technological tool used to spread the world's information among all of its people. I guess to decide whether we can consider the internet as a basic human right, we must go back to discussions we had previously in class about whether human rights are something that all people are born with - therefor are inherent, extremely basic, and concrete - or whether new developments in science, technology, and society lead to the creation of new human rights. Of course, we have seen that the development of society has caused us to materialize and agree upon many basic human rights, but we also found that these rights tend to differ among multiple societies and cultures. Does this mean that some human rights are universal, while others are contextual? Just because something (such as the internet) is extremely beneficial to all of mankind, does that mean all humans have the right to have it provided to them for free at the cost of others who are more privileged? Does taking the internet away from people violate their human rights to the same extent as more concrete examples of this, such as taking away their freedom and enslaving them to a life of servitude? If not, then does that mean the internet should not be considered a basic human right, or does it simply mean that some human rights are weighed more heavily than others?
I think this is an interesting point, and I do think that the internet is a very valuable tool. However, somewhat like Brandon in his last paragraph, I simply can't convince myself that the internet is a basic human right on the same scale as food, water, shelter, safety, etc.
ReplyDeleteI know I've said it before, but I think to make sense of contextual rights and of the changing world, we have to consider multiple tiers of rights. In my opinion , our definition basic human rights should be restricted to those things we truly need to survive, food, water, and shelter plus a right to personal safety and perhaps to education.
There are a lot of things that matter beyond that and internet is one of them, but I do worry about cheapening people's physical basic needs by focusing on their need for internet or other such things.
My first gut reaction was to say no, internet access is not a basic human right. However I do believe that it is what the internet offers, namely access to information and global peers, that could be considered a basic human right.
ReplyDeleteDeborah, I agree with your idea of tiered rights. I also think that it is important to keep things like globalization in mind when discussing human rights. In the past it may have been enough to ensure people had adequate food, water, housing, in other words to meet purely physical demands. But is that the case today? In a world where debates and arguments pertinent to the human race as a whole are taking place on the global level, isn't it unfair that anyone should be unable to access the discussion? This goes back to our talk about intellectual freedom as a personal or a communal right. What good are my thoughts and ideas if I can't share them?
With that being said, maybe a re-evaluation of which needs should take priority is in order. I do not mean to advocate that internet access should come at the expense of clean water or enough food, but can't the tier for basic human rights simply expand as the world expands? Do we need to substitute the one right for another, or can they all be considered basic? Human rights need to be considered in light of a global community. Is freedom to express and share one's ideas, as extolled in our reading "In Search of Our Mother's Gardens", a basic right if the alternative is a slow suffocation of potential?
That's a really interesting thought, and while I think I agree that information/the ability to express oneself is a human right, I also think those rights still might be better expressed by rights to free speech and to education. I think the internet might just be too specific a demand to make sense as a *basic* human right. (Although, if I keep thinking about it I may change my mind.)
DeleteWhat kind of education can you have these days if you don't have access to the free, global flow of information on the internet? Especially given the role it has played in increasing transparency and communication, and facilitating things like the Arab Spring?
DeleteIn an ever more globalized world, having internet access certainly opens up a lot of possibilities. This is particularly true in areas that may be more isolated from other resources. The internet acts as both a library and a town square, giving access to both information and people.
ReplyDeleteAs the posters above me, however, I am hesitant to call internet access a basic human right. Rather, it seems that the internet is a means to fulfilling already existing human rights. There is a general consensus that all people have a right to free speech, assembly, and education. In reality, even these three rights boil down to something simpler: the right to share ideas. I feel the argument for a right to internet access is much stronger through this framework.
In the past, the invention of the printing press allowed for more ideas to be spread than ever before. It was a revolution in technology which in turn gave rise to revolutions in culture. The advent of the internet may be considered the second wave in this information sharing revolution. Would you be as equally convinced that it is a basic human right to have access to a printing press? It was (and still is) a powerful tool, but it seems inaccurate to call it a basic right.
I believe it is far too specific to say that internet access is a basic human right. It seems to devalue what I consider to be timeless ideals. In line with Deborah's idea of tiered rights, I think that these more specific rights are under the umbrella of other basic rights. This allows for a more nuanced and context oriented analysis. Is internet access necessary for true freedom of speech? In a globalized world is it necessary as part of a modern education? The answers to questions such as these will reveal whether internet access should be freely available to all. I don't believe that internet access itself is a basic human right, but I do believe that it may be critical to the fulfillment of such.