Should free internet and accessibility be added to Bill of Rights?

[MessiahDecoy123]

The internet gives the average person a great deal of power. You can obtain any academic data from any place in the world with the click of a button. You can publish your ideologies or struggles and spread them across the globe in seconds. You can organize an international protest in minutes. You can discuss politics and philosophy with anyone on the planet in seconds. The Founding Fathers could not have imagined such a incredible tool being widespread in the future. If they could it would've been added to the Bill of Rights and they would've been willing to die for these democratic yet godlike powers. Giant corporations aren't always bad but it's unwise to hand them one of the most powerful tools given to common man in human history so they can please a few shareholders.

 

[Matt]

No. It contradicts the very nature of the rights prescribed by the Constitution. The Constitution/Bill of Rights is not a check on corporate power. It is a check on the government. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[hellified]

education should be

 

[Matt]

education should be

Define it. Define a constitutional right that guarantees education, please. I am not being facetious. I am genuinely curious as to how you would define it before I respond.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

No. It contradicts the very nature of the rights prescribed by the Constitution. The Constitution/Bill of Rights is not a check on corporate power. It is a check on the government. Nothing more, nothing less.

Isn't outlawing slavery a check on corporate power?

Also basically if the government ensures a public OPTION when it comes to internet and healthcare couldn't it be argued that this is similar to protecting voting rights?

 

[Matt]

Isn't outlawing slavery a check on corporate power?

Also basically if the government ensures a public OPTION when it comes to internet and healthcare couldn't it be argued that this is similar to protecting voting rights?

No. There is absolutely zero analogy to be made between internet access and voting rights. The constitutional foundation for the latter is vastly different from any argument that can be presented regarding the former.

As to health care, there is a very different constitutional argument to be made. Again, internet access is not analogous.

As to your argument that outlawing slavery is a check on corporate power that is functional equivalent of restricting internet access, I am not dignifying that with a response beyond this: the 13th Amendment should in no way be viewed as a check on corporate power. That is stupid. The 13th Amendment stands for one simple notion: one human being cannot be the property of another human being because doing so deprives them of not only every right enumerated by the Constitution, but their basic liberty as a whole. Any conflict that has with any other entity is incidental. It is not about checking anyone. It is about ensuring the citizen's fundamental liberty.

And to the extent that you want to argue that internet access is an essential part of one's liberty, I suggest you look at other enumerated rights and gain an understanding of what type of rights are being protected through the constitution. Internet/information does not fit into those categories. There is a better argument that a car is an essential part of liberty than the internet.

But alas, that fails because there is no right to have your liberty interests paid for. Let's assume that there is a right to information. That only means the government cannot restrict your access (i.e. shut down the internet). The idea that the government must provide someone with an outlet to exercise their rights simply does not exist (beyond counsel, which is specifically enumerated). You have a right to free exercise of religion. That doesn't mean the government has to give you all of the resources to build a church. You have a right to free speech/assembly. The government doesn't have to bus protestor around. You are confusing essential rights with instrumentalities.

So...all of this is a long way of saying...just pay your ****ing internet bill.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I think it's telling that the first thing an authoritarian regime does is limit or restrict internet access.

That's probably one of the clearest signs that internet access is a form of civil liberty that empowers the public and a democracy to a significant extent.

These dictators are no different that King George restricting speech, assembly, press, from his American colonies to maintain tight control.

The internet is a democratic tool like voting. In fact it empowers the common man far beyond the typical vote.

If one can argue that a positive right like healthcare should be a right then we shouldn't rule out the internet as a right when you consider how essential it is in preventing tyranny in the modern world and preventing tyranny is inarguably one of the main goals of crafting the US Constitution.

 

[Matt]

I think it's telling that the first thing an authoritarian regime does is limit or restrict internet access.

That's probably one of the clearest signs that internet access is a form of civil liberty that empowers the public and a democracy to a significant extent.

These dictators are no different that King George restricting speech, assembly, press, from his American colonies to maintain tight control.

The internet is a democratic tool like voting. In fact it empowers the common man far beyond the typical vote.

If one can argue that a positive right like healthcare should be a right then we should rule out the internet as a right when you consider how essential it is in establishing tyranny in the modern world and preventing tyranny is inarguably one of the main goals of crafting the US Constitution.

Again, you are confusing right with instrumentality. Internet is not a right like voting. Voting is the ability to take part in self-governance. It is distinct.

What you seem to be suggesting is that there is a right to information. I would agree. It is called the First Amendment. Its covers the right to disseminate information. We don't need a new Amendment for that. We have one that prevents the exact type of danger you warn against.

But the notion that the internet is a right is just flawed as the internet is an instrumentality. By your logic, the government should be paying for my NYT subscription because there is a right to free press. Or should paying for my car because we have a right to travel (see Crandall v. Nevada).

 

[Sithborg]

Why the internet, and not other necessities, like water and heat? Now, I am for net neutrality, as I view the internet as a utility at this point.

As a side point, @#$#% Flint and Snyder for threatening foreclosure for Flint residences not paying their water bill.

 

[Matt]

Why the internet, and not other necessities, like water and heat? Now, I am for net neutrality, as I view the internet as a utility at this point.

As a side point, @#$#% Flint and Snyder for threatening foreclosure for Flint residences not paying their water bill.

Exactly. There are so many more greater necessities than internet.

But let's take Messiah Decoy's point at face value. We can put aside the notion that there is a right to free movement of information, just about every way to attack that is covered by the First Amendment. So his proposition is essentially that there is a right to freedom of accessibility of information. Let's follow this through.

If that is the case, it is unconstitutional to charge me for cable, because it is a means to disseminate information. Newspapers will have to be subsidized by the government. You can even argue that books are covered by this.

Suffice to say, all of the above is absurd. Just as absurd as saying there is a constitutional right to free internet.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Again, you are confusing right with instrumentality. Internet is not a right like voting. Voting is the ability to take part in self-governance. It is distinct.

What you seem to be suggesting is that there is a right to information. I would agree. It is called the First Amendment. Its covers the right to disseminate information. We don't need a new Amendment for that. We have one that prevents the exact type of danger you warn against.

But the notion that the internet is a right is just flawed as the internet is an instrumentality. By your logic, the government should be paying for my NYT subscription because there is a right to free press. Or should paying for my car because we have a right to travel (see Crandall v. Nevada).

There's a difference between guaranteeing a free NYT subscription and ensuring a person has an opportunity to subscribe.

If NYT can't afford bandwith throttling, I may not be able to use their site properly. If they can afford bandwith throttling they may be forced to increase subscription prices beyond what the underclass is willing to pay.

Then NYT could simply get throttled unofficially because of a huge expose on telecom giants.

Also what about the next NYT, an up and coming newspaper, that cannot afford trottling costs?

If the internet is considered a public utility, you avoid these abuses of authority and many others.

Plus the internet empowers the common person far beyond NYT articles.

It's probably the greatest democratic tool created since the printing press.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Why the internet, and not other necessities, like water and heat? Now, I am for net neutrality, as I view the internet as a utility at this point.

As a side point, @#$#% Flint and Snyder for threatening foreclosure for Flint residences not paying their water bill.

I think affordable and accessible public utilities should be a right (along with public education and universal healthcare).

I would file internet access under "public utilities".

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Exactly. There are so many more greater necessities than internet.

But let's take Messiah Decoy's point at face value. We can put aside the notion that there is a right to free movement of information, just about every way to attack that is covered by the First Amendment. So his proposition is essentially that there is a right to freedom of accessibility of information. Let's follow this through.

If that is the case, it is unconstitutional to charge me for cable, because it is a means to disseminate information. Newspapers will have to be subsidized by the government. You can even argue that books are covered by this.

Suffice to say, all of the above is absurd. Just as absurd as saying there is a constitutional right to free internet.

Well, when I say "free internet" I really meant less restricted internet. I regret using the term "free".

Also, unlike cable or books, the internet is a two way street that goes far beyond "press" access. We're talking about free speech and free assembly a thousand times more effecient than what the founders were accustomed to.

A "read only" internet is an incredible tool for democracy, enlightenment and education. But when you add the amount of voice and networking capability the internet provides we're talking about a critically essential tool for democracy and political/social/professional mobility.

 

[uadialej]

The extent that you want to argue that internet access is an essential part of one's liberty

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Bump

 

[Herofan]

I think a government providing public transportation is a good idea/good program, though an optional program rather than an outright individual right; similarly the Internet is so important and valuable the government providing a public option makes sense, especially with some cable/IS providers being in a monopoly position. There's no need to make that option free and therefore have such an advantage over private providers, though.

I'm not sure how the Internet could be made less restrictive other than a public option so that prices don't increase too much and quality doesn't decline.

 

[childeroland]

Do the cable companies agree to divide up territories among themselves or are cable monopolies imposed in other ways?

 

[Teelie]

Cable companies and ISPs in general stay out of each other's territories with token amounts of "competition" in the fringes where they meet to provide the appearence there is genuine competition.

 

[Herofan]

You could have a law (while an amendment seems excessive) that providers couldn't block or slow content or charge more for it based on its political viewpoint even though they could for viewpoint-neutral reasons like how much bandwidth the site used.

 

[Steyin]

I view the internet as a luxury, not a right.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I view the internet as a luxury, not a right.

I'm not saying everyone gets free computers.

I'm saying the internet, as an entity, should not be controlled by a few people who determine which websites people have access to.

You ever notice the first thing autocrats and dictators restrict is the internet.

It's not because they're afraid of cat memes.

The internet prevents tyranny more than your GUNS.

Free speech, free press, free assembly and democratic power are all amplified a thousand times by an unrestricted and open internet.

If the founders protected gun rights, I'm absolutely certain they would protect the internet, the greatest tool for democracy and civil liberty in the last century.

 

[childeroland]

For people who depend on the internet to do their jobs, it certainly isn't just a luxury.

 

[Teelie]

Or people who have family that live out of state, or need to pay certain bills, or live in areas where there is no other feasible form of communication...

The internet should be a utility and treated as such. Even Title II wasn't enough but we have Republicans who are corporate sponsored running the country right now so certain citizen rights and protections are going straight out the window.

 

[Silvermoth]

I would love an international digital bill of rights. The internet is borderless so why should a bill of rights regarding it be regulated by borders?

 

[LTuser]

education should be

BUt to what level? Just high school? College?? But what type? 3 yr (AA), 4 years (Bachelors)? Or all the way up to a PHD>..

As to the OP's question, no i do NOT think 'free internet' should be a right.

As a side point, @#$#% Flint and Snyder for threatening foreclosure for Flint residences not paying their water bill.

Foreclosure is a big harsh, but if you don't pay your due bills, you should get cut off. Whether its gas, water, power or your damn phone..

The extent that you want to argue that internet access is an essential part of one's liberty

Very true. Back when i was stationed in Gulfport MS (Seabees from 2007 till i retired in 2012), all 4 of the local libraries i poked my heads in, all had free internet access for library members.. And when i moved up here to Cbus Ohio, i see exactly the same. Dozens of pcs in all branches i've poked my heads in, all with free internet..