Don't know how to feel about this. On the one hand, the idea that everyone has a "right" to broadband seems illogical, or even downright silly. On the other hand, it is becoming, more and more, a necessary tool that greatly hinders those who don't have access. Not to mention the fact that more and more countries are starting to make this a basic right within their borders. http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/10/15/finland.internet.rights/index.html
I think you're over-analyzing the word "right". They're just trying to make sure every citizen has internet access. It wouldn't be nearly as strange if this story was about ensuring every citizen has telephone access or electricity, would it?
What right? Put in Hohfeld terms, claim right, power, or privilege? We have to be clear here. The right to enjoy broadband access or the right to be entitled to broadband access (gov't has an obligation to provide). I think it is absurd to demand the latter. We don't have a right to even demand gov't provide personal safety protection as of right now, so let's get real.
That's ridiculous. So if I go to a remote part of the rocky mountains, I can sue the government for denying my right to broadband? There's a fundamental difference between a human right and a public service. Law enforcement, for example, is not a human right. It is a public service. If I get mugged, I cannot sue the police.
Well, if want to debate about it, there is one issue in this area. In Europe, there is this 3 strike law that bar a person internet access (much less broadband) forever, if that person is found to access "bad" web sites 3 times (maybe a child p*rn site, or priatebay something like that). It is a strict liability as far as I can tell. So the debate is whether gov't can abdicate one's right to access internet like that. The critics view "right to broadband" in that context as a privilege like freedom of speech that should be free from gov't interference.
Exactly. People can not be as easily tracked and controlled without the internet. It is a necessary tool for the liberal ultimate liberal agenda.
Alot of these Scandinavian countries we either idolize or stigmatize for having aggressive social subsidies are like rich suburbs: lots of money, relatively few people and a lot of cultural and social homogeneity; little to no wonder they take care of each other in ways that an over-leveraged Indian burial ground like the U.S. never could or would.
