FCC to repeal Net Neutrality Bill

[Luminesa]

> A non-binding resolution

Right....

Doesn't matter. The internet is a human right due to freedom of communication and information it provides.

It’s an opinion article. Furthermore, there are billions of people on the planet who a.) live without internet, and b.) who are not panicking because they do not have internet. Whether they be in the mountains of China or the Egyptian deserts, this article is very first-world-centric and doesn’t consider that, you know, maybe there are people out there who are not screaming that the internet is their “oxygen”.

[United Imperial Systems]

Doesn't matter. The internet is a human right due to freedom of communication and information it provides.

It’s an opinion article. Furthermore, there are billions of people on the planet who a.) live without internet, and b.) who are not panicking because they do not have internet. Whether they be in the mountains of China or the Egyptian deserts, this article is very first-world-centric and doesn’t consider that, you know, maybe there are people out there who are not screaming that the internet is their “oxygen”.

Let me ask you something.
If you were, say, sent around... 2000 years ago, would it suit you?
Nope, no it wouldn't, stuff you took for granted would either be waaaay too expensive, or won't exist.
So we take the internet for granted, they never saw, used, likely never heard about it, so they cannot take it for granted.
The whole "Other people don't have this, so quit yer bellyaching" argument is ridiculous...

[Telconi]

It’s an opinion article. Furthermore, there are billions of people on the planet who a.) live without internet, and b.) who are not panicking because they do not have internet. Whether they be in the mountains of China or the Egyptian deserts, this article is very first-world-centric and doesn’t consider that, you know, maybe there are people out there who are not screaming that the internet is their “oxygen”.

Let me ask you something.
If you were, say, sent around... 2000 years ago, would it suit you?
Nope, no it wouldn't, stuff you took for granted would either be waaaay too expensive, or won't exist.
So we take the internet for granted, they never saw, used, likely never heard about it, so they cannot take it for granted.
The whole "Other people don't have this, so quit yer bellyaching" argument is ridiculous...

When did she make that argument? I understood it as "other people don't have this so it can't be a human right" which is absolutely correct...

[Valrifell]

Let me ask you something.
If you were, say, sent around... 2000 years ago, would it suit you?
Nope, no it wouldn't, stuff you took for granted would either be waaaay too expensive, or won't exist.
So we take the internet for granted, they never saw, used, likely never heard about it, so they cannot take it for granted.
The whole "Other people don't have this, so quit yer bellyaching" argument is ridiculous...

When did she make that argument? I understood it as "other people don't have this so it can't be a human right" which is absolutely correct...

Other people exist in places where free speech is non-existent, I guess that makes it not a human right. Darn, I liked that one, too.

[Telconi]

When did she make that argument? I understood it as "other people don't have this so it can't be a human right" which is absolutely correct...

Other people exist in places where free speech is non-existent, I guess that makes it not a human right. Darn, I liked that one, too.

Really? Please point out the society of illiterate mutes...

[Valrifell]

Other people exist in places where free speech is non-existent, I guess that makes it not a human right. Darn, I liked that one, too.

Really? Please point out the society of illiterate mutes...

I can point out places where saying the wrong thing is lethal, if you'd like.

[Telconi]

Really? Please point out the society of illiterate mutes...

I can point out places where saying the wrong thing is lethal, if you'd like.

"Coercive entity punishing people for excersizing human rights" doesn't equal "human right doesn't exist".

[Valrifell]

I can point out places where saying the wrong thing is lethal, if you'd like.

"Coercive entity punishing people for excersizing human rights" doesn't equal "human right doesn't exist".

Either way, there are mute and illiterate people in the world, somewhere.

[Telconi]

"Coercive entity punishing people for excersizing human rights" doesn't equal "human right doesn't exist".

Either way, there are mute and illiterate people in the world, somewhere.

Exceptions to the rule.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

I can point out places where saying the wrong thing is lethal, if you'd like.

"Coercive entity punishing people for excersizing human rights" doesn't equal "human right doesn't exist".

I can point out places where the same institutions that commit these offenses are also on the Human Rights Council, thus exposing the hypocrisy of the very institution that establishes what is a human right.

[Luminesa]

When did she make that argument? I understood it as "other people don't have this so it can't be a human right" which is absolutely correct...

Other people exist in places where free speech is non-existent, I guess that makes it not a human right. Darn, I liked that one, too.

Free speech is a human right because it is a basic human requirement, specifically one that all humans need in order to live. You can live perfectly fine without a computer.

[Luminesa]

Really? Please point out the society of illiterate mutes...

I can point out places where saying the wrong thing is lethal, if you'd like.

Which is wrong specifically because free speech is something all people should be allowed to have. A computer in your house, or in anyone’s house, is not a right. Might be a necessity depending on your job, but it’s not a right.

[United Imperial Systems]

Other people exist in places where free speech is non-existent, I guess that makes it not a human right. Darn, I liked that one, too.

Free speech is a human right because it is a basic human requirement, specifically one that all humans need in order to live. You can live perfectly fine without a computer.

Actually, you can live just fine without free speech, ask North Koreans or Chinese.
Should we start restricting free speech? I mean, you can live without it.

[Vassenor]

Other people exist in places where free speech is non-existent, I guess that makes it not a human right. Darn, I liked that one, too.

Free speech is a human right because it is a basic human requirement, specifically one that all humans need in order to live. You can live perfectly fine without a computer.

You can live perfectly fine with no guns as well but that doesn't stop people screeching about how owning one is a basic human right.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Free speech is a human right because it is a basic human requirement, specifically one that all humans need in order to live. You can live perfectly fine without a computer.

You can live perfectly fine with no guns as well but that doesn't stop people screeching about how owning one is a basic human right.

>He doesn't consider the sword confiscations after the Sengoku Jidai to be unconstitutional
Back to Russia with you.

[The Grim Reaper]

Doesn't matter. The internet is a human right due to freedom of communication and information it provides.

It’s an opinion article. Furthermore, there are billions of people on the planet who a.) live without internet, and b.) who are not panicking because they do not have internet. Whether they be in the mountains of China or the Egyptian deserts, this article is very first-world-centric and doesn’t consider that, you know, maybe there are people out there who are not screaming that the internet is their “oxygen”.

The article clearly states that the UN Human Rights Council passed a non-binding resolution to condemn nations that inhibit the dissemination of information over the internet; the underlying legal logic is based on Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

Non-binding resolutions are the modus operandi of the United Nations as a whole, and the legal logic is in line with broader practice in the West that interprets free speech communications law as relevant to internet usage; neither of those are sufficient or substantial rebuttals.

Regarding "first-world centricity" - as of June 2017, a majority of the world has internet access. This is of course particularly buoyed by North America and Europe, but there are also above-majority showings in Latin America & the Middle East, while Asia is currently on a penetration rate of 46.7%. Internet access plans internationally are likely to increase penetration rates further as the resurgence of low-cost space travel introduces more affordable satellite internet, and similar internet access plans like Project LOON and mobile internet continue to make headway into nations with low infrastructure (particularly Africa), while large nations in Asia like India and China seek out affordable ways to connect extremely dense population centres to the internet. This is, however, a moot point.

The correct rebuttal of the article provided was that the UNCHR at no point stated that the /internet/ is a human right, but rather, that access to the internet is a human right vis a vis use as a medium of free political & cultural expression. In the West, we (generally) do not consider capitalist modes of distribution to have the capacity to inhibit human rights, even when they do, so net neutrality (by definition as government deregulation) cannot infringe a human right whether or not one exists. If you argue that capitalism /can/ inhibit human rights, then you must by extension argue that capitalism is inhibiting the capacity to express oneself via the internet, and that in line with basically every developed nation ever, that this infringes the right to free speech - or you must offer up an alternative definition of 'free speech'.

[Thermodolia]

Free speech is a human right because it is a basic human requirement, specifically one that all humans need in order to live. You can live perfectly fine without a computer.

You can live perfectly fine with no guns as well but that doesn't stop people screeching about how owning one is a basic human right.

According to the UDHR the right to self defense is to be protected and is a human right. So under the UDHR definition owning a gun for self defense is a human right

Free speech is a human right because it is a basic human requirement, specifically one that all humans need in order to live. You can live perfectly fine without a computer.

Actually, you can live just fine without free speech, ask North Koreans or Chinese.
Should we start restricting free speech? I mean, you can live without it.

Ya no. Free speech is an official part of the UDHR, it is a human right. The internet is not.

[Thermodolia]

It’s an opinion article. Furthermore, there are billions of people on the planet who a.) live without internet, and b.) who are not panicking because they do not have internet. Whether they be in the mountains of China or the Egyptian deserts, this article is very first-world-centric and doesn’t consider that, you know, maybe there are people out there who are not screaming that the internet is their “oxygen”.

The article clearly states that the UN Human Rights Council passed a non-binding resolution to condemn nations that inhibit the dissemination of information over the internet; the underlying legal logic is based on Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

Non-binding resolutions are the modus operandi of the United Nations as a whole, and the legal logic is in line with broader practice in the West that interprets free speech communications law as relevant to internet usage; neither of those are sufficient or substantial rebuttals.

Regarding "first-world centricity" - as of June 2017, a majority of the world has internet access. This is of course particularly buoyed by North America and Europe, but there are also above-majority showings in Latin America & the Middle East, while Asia is currently on a penetration rate of 46.7%. Internet access plans internationally are likely to increase penetration rates further as the resurgence of low-cost space travel introduces more affordable satellite internet, and similar internet access plans like Project LOON and mobile internet continue to make headway into nations with low infrastructure (particularly Africa), while large nations in Asia like India and China seek out affordable ways to connect extremely dense population centres to the internet. This is, however, a moot point.

The correct rebuttal of the article provided was that the UNCHR at no point stated that the /internet/ is a human right, but rather, that access to the internet is a human right vis a vis use as a medium of free political & cultural expression. In the West, we (generally) do not consider capitalist modes of distribution to have the capacity to inhibit human rights, even when they do, so net neutrality (by definition as government deregulation) cannot infringe a human right whether or not one exists. If you argue that capitalism /can/ inhibit human rights, then you must by extension argue that capitalism is inhibiting the capacity to express oneself via the internet, and that in line with basically every developed nation ever, that this infringes the right to free speech - or you must offer up an alternative definition of 'free speech'.

So basically the internet isn’t a human right in of itself but limiting access to the internet is threatening the Human Right is free speech. However at the same time having NN or not is not restricting freedom of speech and therefore has nothing to do with with Human Rights

[The Flutterlands]

You can live perfectly fine with no guns as well but that doesn't stop people screeching about how owning one is a basic human right.

According to the UDHR the right to self defense is to be protected and is a human right. So under the UDHR definition owning a gun for self defense is a human right

Actually, you can live just fine without free speech, ask North Koreans or Chinese.
Should we start restricting free speech? I mean, you can live without it.

Ya no. Free speech is an official part of the UDHR, it is a human right. The internet is not.

But in this day and age a free and open internet is required for free speech and freedom of expression. What Ajit Pai essentially did was privatize the internet under the control of telecoms. Telecoms will now have the power to censor and throttle rival content or politics they disagree with at our expense. To make it worse many people have no choice but to accept corporate tyranny or go without internet. We have lost free speech on the greatest place for free speech.

[Vassenor]

You can live perfectly fine with no guns as well but that doesn't stop people screeching about how owning one is a basic human right.

According to the UDHR the right to self defense is to be protected and is a human right. So under the UDHR definition owning a gun for self defense is a human right

Actually, you can live just fine without free speech, ask North Koreans or Chinese.
Should we start restricting free speech? I mean, you can live without it.

Ya no. Free speech is an official part of the UDHR, it is a human right. The internet is not.

Oh right, I forgot that guns are the only valid means of self-defence in the world.

[Thermodolia]

According to the UDHR the right to self defense is to be protected and is a human right. So under the UDHR definition owning a gun for self defense is a human right


Ya no. Free speech is an official part of the UDHR, it is a human right. The internet is not.

But in this day and age a free and open internet is required for frew speech and freedom of expression.

It’s not required no. Undue restrictions on the internet, like the NK or China’s great firewall, would be considered restricting freedom of speech but not having NN is not.

What Ajit Pai essentially did was privatize the internet under the control of telecoms. Telecoms will now have the power to censor and throttle rival content or politics they disagree with. We have lost frew speech on the greatest place for free speech.

No we have not lost free speech. The internet is only a medium for expression it is not a right in of itself. And furthermore like Grim said that if you believe that taking away NN and privatization of the internet is a restriction of freedom of speech then you must believe that all capitalism is a restriction on freedom of speech.

[Holy Tedalonia]

According to the UDHR the right to self defense is to be protected and is a human right. So under the UDHR definition owning a gun for self defense is a human right


Ya no. Free speech is an official part of the UDHR, it is a human right. The internet is not.

Oh right, I forgot that guns are the only valid means of self-defence in the world.

Guns are the most reasonable self defence in the world.

[Thermodolia]

According to the UDHR the right to self defense is to be protected and is a human right. So under the UDHR definition owning a gun for self defense is a human right


Ya no. Free speech is an official part of the UDHR, it is a human right. The internet is not.

Oh right, I forgot that guns are the only valid means of self-defence in the world.

Never said that. But owning on for self defense would still be considered a human right as defined by the UDHR. This doesn’t mean that other forms of self defense don’t exist just that a gun is one of them.

Hardly any nation in the west outright bans all guns. Most say that you can have a gun for self defense. As the right to self defense is a human right.


Think of it this way. If you say that banning all television is a restriction of the freedom of speech then the same is true for an outright ban of all guns. Both the television and the gun are forms though which the respective rights are utilized

[Ifreann]

According to the UDHR the right to self defense is to be protected and is a human right. So under the UDHR definition owning a gun for self defense is a human right


Ya no. Free speech is an official part of the UDHR, it is a human right. The internet is not.

But in this day and age a free and open internet is required for free speech and freedom of expression.

No it isn't.

What Ajit Pai essentially did was privatize the internet under the control of telecoms.

Not really.

Telecoms will now have the power to censor and throttle rival content or politics they disagree with at our expense.

Yeah. But they'll probably mostly focus on getting what money they can out of the likes of Netflix or Facebook before the Democrats get back into office and ruin their fun by passing Net Neutrality laws.

To make it worse many people have no choice but to accept corporate tyranny or go without internet. We have lost free speech on the greatest place for free speech.

You never had free speech on the internet. I would have thought you'd know that from personal experience.

[The Flutterlands]

But in this day and age a free and open internet is required for frew speech and freedom of expression.

It’s not required no. Undue restrictions on the internet, like the NK or China’s great firewall, would be considered restricting freedom of speech but not having NN is not.

What Ajit Pai essentially did was privatize the internet under the control of telecoms. Telecoms will now have the power to censor and throttle rival content or politics they disagree with. We have lost frew speech on the greatest place for free speech.

No we have not lost free speech. The internet is only a medium for expression it is not a right in of itself. And furthermore like Grim said that if you believe that taking away NN and privatization of the internet is a restriction of freedom of speech then you must believe that all capitalism is a restriction on freedom of speech.

Then, to a free speech absolutist, capitalism is a restriction of freedom of speech because we have no recourse from Private censorship which must be illgalized. Freedom of speech and expression must be allowed to flourish without corporate interference. That is the only way we can truly live in a free society. Telecoms will have the power to censor any content they desire. That is disgusting and cannot be tolerated at all, regardless of whether or not the internet is human right.

In other words, I don't care if It's not a human right. It's objective that the internet be free and open and to hell with the Isps who don't like that idea.