Is Internet Access a Human Right? Reflections in the Wake of the Egyptian Protests

WhoWee

Ok...so, what DO you think about the issue of internet access?

croghan27

Maybe that sometime in the not-too-distant future internet access will be considered on par with a 'free press' - but that time is not yet ...so far it is another means of disseminating information - always an aid to a free press, but not a core necessity ...yet.

I think of restoration England, with the essayists Addison and Steele, Swift et al - their intelligencers were fundamental in building a thriving press as we know it, indeed, important to the development of democratic institutions. Is there any doubt that many of the current crop of bloggers will be studied in future schools (or on line, as may be the case) as instances of political and social development.

The internet is not integrated enough so far to be a human right (business has it's own agenda) - but I suspect the day is coming.

That answer the question?

WhoWee

Your response is similar to what my son and his friend told me last evening. They said our definition of "rights" will evolve over time - in 10,000 years telepathy in public might be on par with breathing (or even more acceptable given CO2 emmissions)?

croghan27

You son is wise ..... even if I have considered with some I have met that Colgate may be a human right ... for me.

WhoWee

I love him dearly - and he has his moments - but "wise"......again, he has his moments.

croghan27

Being the father of three boys I found that one always was wise, one foolish and the other in trouble

(OT) Nelson's gunners (who worshiped him) would always be the first target in an battle ... the gunnery deck would fire at the gunnery decks .... their comment was: "T'is a short life, but a merry one." This applies here.

They kept life ....er....er.. interesting.

croghan27

This probably could go into two thread ..... this one and one on the happenings in Egypt ....

Good 'ol Hosni is tying up the internet, even here in Canada ---- getting into al Jazeera is damn near impossible and Twitter is just a wish. "Sorry, we are busy, try again later."

baywax

Yeah, its pretty hard to trust anyone, Mexico, USA or Canada these days... up here we have the RCMP investigating the RCMP... like that works... not! Then we have the RCMP investigating the Government... but the govt. pays the RCMP... that isn't working either.

The best solution is to legalize/tax the drugs and somehow get a trustworthy govt in power. Getting a trustworthy govt is hard but can happen if they are paid enough... along with the police force etc... and they are educated to the point of maintaining certain values that support the rights of the people to potable water, health care, inspected food and so on... this is our model here in the land of the "snowback"... where it rains a lot.

WhoWee

Government needs to be held accountable by the people. If you require the Government only be accountable to Government - the people will more than likely give up something (money, rights, freedom - something?).

croghan27

This may seem about Greenwald - but he expands it ......

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/

.

WhoWee

In the context of your post (real world application) - what do you think about the close association of the Obama Administration and GE and it's CEO?

croghan27

Is this the lad that specialized in shipping GE operations off shore and has been put in charge of job creation in the US? In all truth (why would I speak otherwise ) I know so little about the subject - save what I just said - and that is less than comprehensive - I really have no set opinion on the subject.

I know I have deep concerns about the crooks and thieves Obama has installed as saviors of the economy and the thought of Holder makes me shiver. It is one indication of how bad they are that Bush thought highly of them.

That being said, the US is still a foreign country to me (even if I have lived there) - and our PM has made some doozies of choices too.

WhoWee

I'm in favor of term limits in the House of Representatives and prefer Presidents first gain experience as a Governor.

The Washington community is often described as "inside the beltway" - to that (label this opinion) - inbreeding is rarely a good thing.

croghan27

Is that not like calling out a SWAT to stop J-walking? A bit of the old overkill? I admit that all too many democratically elected members turn out to be but servants of big money interests - yet could that not be solved in other ways - ways that would not chuck out the chaff with the wheat. Edward Kennedy and Strom Thurmond served different constituencies, but were fairly elected by their chosen 'target group'.

Perhaps if election financing were talk out of private hands - who is elected is much too dependent upon money spent, and had the state fund campaigns or at least control 'the stump' in closer ways the that the electorate prefer would be able to continue.

Could you explain more about the requirement of governorship - I am not sure how that applies.

Here in Canada we have an appointed Senate - it is supposed to be 'the chamber of second thought' - that our current PM has turned into a filter to undemocratically abolish legislation he may not support and zip through laws he does. It has often been called an undemocratic vestige of our British heritage. (Not sure it is all that undemocratic. myself.) But your Senate has two members from each state - no matter the population. What ever happened to 'rep by pop'?

I think in both cases some solution can be found without invoking term limits - or banning someone's participation on arbitrary grounds.

As for those 'inside the beltway' - Mr. Greenwald, who I enjoy both for his views and for his prose, has much to say about them, and the puppy like adoration of the main stream press that fawns over them.

WhoWee

I've long thought serving as the Governor of a state provides basic training for the job of President. Serving as CEO pf a multi-national corporation could also prepare a President for some of their daily tasks.

This thread is a good example of the type of issue that might be presented to the leader of a state or country. Prior knowledge of state involvement or multi-national communications experience may prove helpful. Often at the Presidential level, the balance must be maintained between what is necessary and just as to what is fair and economically viable.

croghan27

Would you rule out John McCain and Ron Paul? Paul is ideologically driven rather than practically; has spent his life in the government he seems to despise. McCain is notable for what he had not done rather than what he has.

On the 'other' side JFK was a Senator - is that enough ..... Johnson just about ran the government for quite a while during WWII so he had loads of experience - perhaps that is why he was a much more effective President than his predecessor.

Certainly training and experience are as important in government as anything, but cannot be used to exclude anyone and still maintain adherence to democratic principles.

WhoWee

I'll try (again) to get us back on topic with this response.

I think both McCain and Paul serve the public well in their current capacities - we need a variety of opinions and the occasional compromise.

As for JFK - opinions vary as to his performance in dealing with the Russian leader, the Bay of Pigs, and the Cuban missle crisis. I think the Russians under-estimated him initially - because of his inexperience.

Kennedy was competitive and (IMO) responsible for making the moon shot possible. I'm not certain the civil rights movement would have been as emotion driven on campus if Kennedy was not assassinated, nor do I think the "British Invasion" would have been so important and eventful? IMO the Beatle's filled a void in the hearts of many after a 3(?) month mourning period. IMO - the distrust of all things Government and the anti-war movement were validated after JFK was killed (followed by Oswald - questions remained and doubt set in). As for Vietnam, we'll never know for sure what Kennedy would have done - opinions vary. I do think Kennedy was better equipped to deal with the social issues of the day better than Johnson or Nixon. I also think Kennedy would have focused more on growing the economy.

Johnson was a very capable politician - no argument.

I think a better comparison might be Bill Clinton to President Obama. Both are educated and intelligent. They are both lawyers. They are both Democrats and entered office with a liberal agenda including healthcare - and some of the same staff - which helped Obama become functional faster. Clinton served 4 (?) terms as a Governor. Obama served 2 (?) years in the Senate. IMO - Clinton was better prepared for the job.

Regardless of the person elected or their political affiliations, when elected President, they represent everyone and need to hit the ground running. Every President surely enters office with some type of plan or agenda or wish list or ideals - or they wouldn't be elected. Likewise, every President has a learning curve - nothing can prepare a person for every challenge of the job.

In the context of this thread - regardless of a Presidents wish list - reality will prevail. In the real world - feeding people is more important than supplying them with internet access - that requires expensive equipment to utilize and substantial support to maintain. If you take a step back now - the safety of the 82 million people of Egypt was more important than an interruption of internet access - wasn't it? Now the problem is their economy - high unemployment. Unless everyone involved in the operation of the internet is willing to work for free - the 82 million people fo Egypt will need to find a way to pay for access and participation - won't they?