[kictanet] Internet Access Is Not a Human Right By VINTON G. CERF

[Grace Mutung'u (Bomu)]

and here's another rejoinder:
deepdip.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/internet-access-as-human-right-mr-cerf-shoots-himself-in-the-foot/
Does the technology tail wag
the human rights dog?
In his recent op-ed in the NYT [1] Mr. CERF has argued
that “internet access” is not a “human right” – though
possibly a “civil right” – because “a technology is an
enabler of rights, not a right itself”.
His argumentation is catchy, but muddles the issues;
Mr. CERF, it seems to me, ends up shooting himself in
the foot.
When he states: “the US never decreed that everyone
has a ‘right’ to a telephone”, he means “universal
service” – a telephone line strung to each and every
door, or country- wide total network coverage for every
citizen. Indeed, there is no right to total (or free)
coverage - just as “freedom of the press” does not
entitle every citizen to a free copy of the NYT every
morning at her doorstep.
When he states that “freedom of access” should
ensure “freedom of speech etc.” he refers to the
political conditions under which people who have
access to communication media are entitled to
communicate among each other: free of government
interference. This personal right is e.g. enshrined in
the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
“Freedom of speech” is an abstract right. Its exercise
necessarily relies on technologies: from the human
voice to paper, radio and so on – and must apply
automatically to all supports through which it is
exercised – internet being the latest (but certainly not
the last) kid on the block. When radio or TV emerged
in the US no one seriously argued that the “right to
free speech” as enshrined in the First Amendment did
not apply to them “because they were only an
enabler” . As long as content and support are
inextricably wedded (and control of the content would
be through the support) Mr. CERF’s argument
“technology is an enabler of rights, not a right itself” is
spurious.
The UN Declaration on Human Rights (UNDHR )[2] and
the European Convention on Human Rights[3] are
clear on the fact that the abstract right is embedded
in the technologies.
Mr. CERF goes on to make a distinction between
“human right” and “civil right”. He likes “civil rights”
better than “human rights” . He argues: “Civil rights are
different from human rights because they are
conferred upon us by law, not intrinsic to us as human
beings.”
By the same logic, Mr. CERF would reject the US
Declaration of Independence, where it states: “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” – for its
character is “self-evident ” and universal. He would
however endorse the Bill of Rights as positive law.
“Human rights” are not self-executing : they represent
legitimate aspirations – not obligations. Their role is to
provide universal legitimacy for these aspirations. No
government may be exonerated from addressing the
moral obligation on grounds of cultural
“exceptionalism” – cultural or otherwise; and it would
have to justify to public opinion world-wide any
curtailment of the aspiration.
On the other hand each state ought to strive and
concretize such aspirations through appropriate legal
means, if and when politically and materially possible.
This is not always the case, as US history retells. The
Bill of Rights enshrines personal and political rights.
Exercising such rights effectively presupposes
economic independence – President Jefferson saw it
that way already, when he hailed “free yeomanry” as
the basis of the Republic. President F. D. Roosevelt
proposed in 1944 that a “Second Bill of Rights” be
passed to make the broad aspiration of economic
rights secure in law. He did not succeed [4] . There is
no “civil right” to hold a job today, though we may hold
a universal aspiration that all have one, and Art. 22-25
of UNDHR stipulate such “rights” .
Would Mr. CERF really be ready to trade the universal
aspiration to politically unfettered “internet access” for
a commitment to equivalent enforceable and
judiciable civil rights in this matter?

On 09/01/2012, Victor Kapiyo <vkapiyo at gmail.com> wrote:
> True McTim, the GA hasn't declared it as such yet. But the report (see:
> http://documents.latimes.com/un-report-internet-rights/) by the
> special rapporteur as presented to the GA is without doubt persuasive
> authority on the subject and will (if not already) influence the treatment
> by states of internet access. And as you rightly point out, many states
> have already taken some positive steps.
>
>
>
> On 9 January 2012 11:16, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Victor,
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Victor Kapiyo <vkapiyo at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I would agree with Grace and disagree with Cerf to some extent.
>> >
>> > I think the internet has become an essential component of the human
>> > condition, and perhaps that would explain the reasoning of the UN in
>> > declaring access to the internet a human right.
>>
>>
>> I don't believe that the UN has actually declared this a human right.
>> Various Member States have passed laws declaring this, but the General
>> Assembly of the UN has not (yet) to my knowledge actually enshrined
>> Internet access as s human right.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> McTim
>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
>> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Victor Kapiyo, LL.B
>
> ====================================================
> *“Your attitude, not your aptitude, will determine your altitude” Zig Ziglar
> *
>


-- 
Grace L.N. Mutung'u (Bomu)
Kenya
Skype: gracebomu
Twitter: GraceMutung'u (Bomu)