Critics of “three-strikes” laws think society risks disenfranchising large segments of the population, especially with outdated copyright laws more relevant to a world before digital distribution.
In an age of growing attempts by copyright holders to implement so-called “three-strikes” legislation to deal with online piracy, some think Internet disconnection for accused file-sharers could raise concerns over the “right to freedom of expression.”
”It’s a social inclusion question,” says Cyberspace Law and Policy Centre executive director David Vaile.
He warns that disconnecting people from the Internet in many ways disconnects them from society, and that particularly restrictive Australian copyright laws increases the risk that it will happen.
”The number of people who could be chucked off like this is quite huge,” he added.
Australian Human Rights Commission president Catherine Branson says the commission hasn’t considered the issue yet, but does acknowledge that Internet access may raise concerns “‘relevant to the right to freedom of expression.”
So far Internet access has been deemed a human right in Finland and Estonia, with calls in Greece and France to follow suit. Attempts do so in France may be somewhat difficult with that country having already enacted “three-strikes” legislation last September.
However, it is worth noting that France’s Constitutional Council struck down an earlier version of the law as unconstitutional, finding that the Internet is essential for the “free communication of thoughts,” and therefore full civic participation in a democratic society.
“The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the most precious rights of man: every citizen may therefore speak, write and print freely, except to respond to the abuse of this freedom in cases determined by law ‘that the current means of communication and given the widespread development of communication services to the public line and the importance of these services for participation in democratic life and the expression of ideas and opinions, this right includes freedom to access these services,’” it wrote in its ruling.
This is what the entertainment industry and politicians either ignore or trivialize. Like it or not, Internet access, though sometimes abused, is in large part necessary for an ever increasing number of tasks and responsibilities. From filing taxes to education, from news to social networking, it’s an important part of our everyday lives that can’t simply be switched off without consequences for society.
If matched against the ills of online piracy I think society will always be better served by choosing civic participation. Internet access in the 21st century is as fundamentally important as is electricity and water.
What do you think?
Stay tuned.
The right, and ability, to communicate with others is fundamental to the freedom of an individual, and a free society.
Communication has been the basis for almost all progress and developments in society and civilisation.
For an explanation by someone better able to elaborate on the reasons why, I suggest everyone (not just the doubters) read “Free Software and the Struggle for Free Thought” by Eben Moglen (General Council for the Free Software Foundation).
In short, if telecom-style Internet services are no longer practical, people will move to more ad-hoc wireless mesh networks, which is now possible due to part of the EM spectrum being made available for such purposes.
In one form or another, no matter how much ‘big content’ tries, something resembling a mass communication network will exist to serve this very fundamental human need.
Social deprivation is akin to sensory deprivation, in the mental health issues it induces.
My own phone company closed all it’s stores and shipped most of the customer service jobs out of the country. Without internet access it is effectively impossible to pay the phone bill anymore. Theoretically you could do it but everyone in the province has either the internet or a few internet-connected ATM-like machines at their downtown skyscrapers.
The internet is not a toy anymore, and just like electricity and shelter, access to it is now becoming a human right.
Should internet access beconsidered a civil right? In this day and age, it most definitely should.
“Calling “internet access” a human right is the dumbest thing I’ve heard in a long time. It’s a privilege, not a right.”… If that is the dumbest thing you’ve heard in a long time then you clearly have never heard Sarah Palin speak. Seriously, you are confusing the NEED to be informed and knowledgeable one’s environment/world with the method by which that is accomplished. The Internet serves the same purpose as Radio/TV in terms of imparting information instantaneously and/or in great depth.
Newspapers once were the primary medium for that function and were supplanted by Radio and TV which are now being challenged by Computers connected to the Internet. You are right to some degree that having Internet access is privilege but , in my opinion, this will cease to be in the near future.
People will gravitate to the medium( the Internet) which they have become most comfortable and will be accomplished by any number of devices that will be as ubiquitous as the old transistor radio. They will use those devices to be alerted to emergency conditions or to make urgent contact with loved one such as occurred most recently in Haiti and NYC in the aftermath of the 911 attacks or to mundanely keep up with the local news.
My point is: it not be about surfing the Net or downloading music but essential and critical need and information and to the ability to accomplish that is a Human/Civil Right not a privilege and in this Age such access is done with ever greater dependence on the Internet.
At this point, would you take anyone’s word if they told you they didn’t have an email address? I certainly would be incredulous if they were any age under 50. The internet may not be a right, but I think it’s more than a privilege. It’s like a phone, Tv, or microwave, You can get around without it, but would you really want to?
EXACTLY! Try getting a decent job without an email address, let alone being told that you can only check your inbox during library hours.
I GUARANTEE that if you graduate college and have no email address on your resume that you WILL NOT be hired. Im mean honestly, would you hire a person without even so much as a [email protected]?
If it isn’t a civil right, at the very least it’s essential for gainful employment. How else can you communicate with the world as needed?
Calling “internet access” a human right is the dumbest thing I’ve heard in a long time. It’s a privilege, not a right. It might be difficult, but you could say the same about having a car. Yes, it makes life inconvenient, but this isn’t the government’s problem. If you want to use internet and don’t want to pay, you can go to any library and use it for free. If you happen to live in the wilderness or an area where internet isn’t available for cheap (not sure a place exists anymore), move to the city.
“Internet access in the 21st century is as fundamentally important as is electricity and water.” Wow, so if you can’t use the internet for a week, you’ll die?
For those that have a 9 to 5 job, library hours are rarely conducive, especially if you consider library hours are being cut repeatedly due to state budget deficits.
You won’t die, anymore than you would without water and electricity, but it does make life difficult when you consider it’s so vital for education and communication.
“Calling “internet access” a human right is the dumbest thing I’ve heard in a long time.”
Despite that the concern is about civil rights, you would virtually be living in between boulders to say that it is the dumbest thing you have heard in ages, let alone “heard”.
“It’s a privilege, not a right.”
That can be said about anything that a human can literally survive without, so your statement is utterly pointless. It is obvious that you are regarding ‘human right’. That is your problem, since ‘civil right’ is the topic at hand. In the meaning of this subject, though, the fact that virtually every user who uses Internet access for more than just email and reading web pages would agree that the right to be able to acquire access when possible supersedes any and all authoritative or corporate intentions.
“It might be difficult, but you could say the same about having a car.”
Although it may be the weight of two giant rocks crushing your brain, you are not even close to a simple comparison of any kind.
“Yes, it makes life inconvenient, but this isn’t the government’s problem.”
Just going along with your context, although irrelevant, human rights are not governed by a government. What actually matters is that the government should always seek to improve the lives of civilians, hence why it exists in the first place. In this generation, the Internet is as fundamentally important as any utility (well, more than telephony at this point). Restricting the ability to subscribe when possible, desired, or necessary for work will leave a civilian at a big and naturally resolvable social disadvantage.
“If you want to use internet and don’t want to pay, …”
Nobody ever mentioned not paying.
“…you can go to any library and use it for free.”
And of course you neglect the fact that the Internet itself is not free and libraries allow only so many hours for one person to use the Internet, let alone that they would only allow email and reading pages.
“If you happen to live in the wilderness or an area where internet isn’t available for cheap (not sure a place exists anymore), move to the city.
Hence civilization.
” [...] Wow, so if you can’t use the internet for a week, you’ll die?”
“Wow, so if you can’t” utilize those utilities “for a week you’ll” not seek a temporary alternative? Nice survivalist intuition you have.
^5
People that get accused of postal fraud do not get banned for life from the postal service.
Yes, it should be.