Wrong Turn

So the UN has taken some research material and come to some interesting conclusions.

For the purpose of this discussion let’s make some baseline assumptions. Human rights can be defined as natural or inalienable rights. These are distinct a different from legal rights which are granted by governing bodies. From very superficial research, it appears that our founding fathers may have blurred the lines between these two “types” of rights. By the inclusion of specific inalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence, and by the specific enumeration of what they felt were inalienable rights within the Bill of Rights, the line between the two has been blurred. A couple of examples: Freedom to worship as you choose; inalienable or legal? I argue that is a fundamental human right. Freedom of speech; inalienable or legal? Again I argue that as being a fundamental human right. On other counts they nailed it: Right to a speedy trial, definitely a legal right, etc.

The LA Times has an article up on this report, and links to the report itself. Here are a couple of the parts that I find most interesting:



Absolutely agree. The internet is a fantastic tool for communication, and collaboration. That is what it was built for, and the evolution in software, and hardware that has taken place since the first DARPA network was built has facilitated this wonderful tool that we have.


Furthermore, producers of traditional media can also use the Internet to greatly expand their audiences at nominal cost. More generally, by enabling individuals to exchange information and ideas instantaneously and inexpensively across national borders, the Internet allows access to information and knowledge that was previously unattainable.

This, in turn, contributes to the discovery of the truth and progress of society as a whole.

“…discovery of truth…”? Uh, maybe not the best turn of a phrase there. The facts are not always what is being communicated through our communication tools. Start at misinformation, disinformation, propaganda, opinions, etc. Everyone wants to win their arguments, influence viewers and readers, and as a result facts are selectively chosen for presentation. Let’s take that a step farther, where (within the world, inclusive of the internet) are the facts? The aphorism is, “History books are written by the winners”. Everything is clouded by opinion, getting to the truth very rarely happens.

Given that access to basic commodities such as electricity remains difficult in many developing States, the Special Rapporteur is acutely aware that universal access to the Internet for all individuals worldwide cannot be achieved instantly.


Hence, States should adopt effective and concrete policies and strategies –- developed in consultation with individuals from all segments of society, including the private sector as well as relevant Government ministries -– to make the Internet widely available, accessible and affordable to all.

As we work are way through to the bottom line here, we see that the UN recognizes the freedom of expression is a human right. I think we can all agree to that, right up to the point that that expression cross the legal and societal boundaries of a particular jurisdiction. The recognize that the internet is an enabling tool. I can agree with that. And finally as you work your way through the report, there are many calls to action for nation-states to facilitate access and maintain open access to the network, and internet tools with recognitions that there are physical and logistical constraints to achieving that.

The headline for the LA Times article: “United Nations report: Internet access is a human right”.

Hmm, I don’t think the report says that. Further, if it did I think it would be wrong. The freedom of expression is an inalienable right. Using a specific tool, not so much.
