Valrifell wrote:Galloism wrote:Um, making better weapons is an innate, inherit, and direct byproduct of human sentience - of which guns are a part.
Much like posting on the internet is an innate, inherit, and direct byproduct of human sentience which created language, and technology that allowed us to throw it much further.
And you don't have the right to access the internet, do we?
You have a right to free speech on the internet.
As SCOTUS said in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, referring to the district court's position:
He construed our cases as requiring a "medium-specific" approach to the analysis of the regulation of mass communication, id., at 873, and concluded that the Internet-as "the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed," id., at 883-is entitled to "the highest protection from governmental intrusion," ibid.30
..
Finally, unlike the conditions that prevailed when Congress first authorized regulation of the broadcast spectrum, the Internet can hardly be considered a "scarce" expressive commodity. It provides relatively unlimited, low-cost capacity for communication of all kinds. The Government estimates that "[a]s many as 40 million people use the Internet today, and that figure is expected to grow to 200 million by 1999."34 This dynamic, multifaceted category of communication includes not only traditional print and news services, but also audio, video, and still images, as well as interactive, real-time dialogue. Through the use of chat rooms, any person with a phone line can become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox. Through the use of Web pages, mail exploders, and newsgroups, the same individual can become a pamphleteer. As the District Court found, "the content on the Internet is as diverse as human thought." 929 F. Supp., at 842 (finding 74). We agree with its conclusion that our cases provide no basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment scrutiny that should be applied to this medium.
...
The Government also asserts that the "knowledge" requirement of both §§ 223(a) and (d), especially when coupled with the "specific child" element found in § 223(d), saves the CDA from overbreadth. Because both sections prohibit the dissemination of indecent messages only to persons known to be under 18, the Government argues, it does not require transmitters to "refrain from communicating indecent material to adults; they need only refrain from disseminating such materials to persons they know to be under 18." Brief for Appellants 24. This argument ignores the fact that most Internet forums-including chat rooms, newsgroups, mail exploders, and the Web-are open to all comers. The Government's assertion that the knowledge requirement somehow protects the communications of adults is therefore untenable. Even the strongest reading of the "specific person" requirement of § 223(d) cannot save the statute. It would confer broad powers of censorship, in the form of a "heckler's veto," upon any opponent of indecent speech who might simply log on and inform the would-be discoursers that his 17-year-old child-a "specific person ... under 18 years of age," 47 U. S. C. §223(d)(1)(A) (1994 ed., Supp. H)-would be present.
Here's the internet, a thing that amplifies and sends your voice further than you could ever hurl it yourself, receives the highest form of protection - despite being an artificial construct
And, the UN along with several countries have argued it is a right or a necessity:
2016: UN Resolution
In Summer of 2016, the United Nations Human Rights Council released a non-binding resolution condemning intentional disruption of internet access by governments.[11] The resolution reaffirmed that "the same rights people have offline must also be protected online".[11] Recent practice of the UN treaty-based bodies indicates growing interest in ensuring access to the Internet. In addition, Internet-related recommendations formulated under the Universal Periodic Review mechanism are as numerous as those related to the right to food and the right to water – both of which are well-established human rights.[12]
Ensuring that access is broadly available and preventing unreasonable restrictions
Several countries have adopted laws that require the state to work to ensure that Internet access is broadly available or preventing the state from unreasonably restricting an individual's access to information and the Internet:
Costa Rica: A 30 July 2010 ruling by the Supreme Court of Costa Rica stated: "Without fear of equivocation, it can be said that these technologies [information technology and communication] have impacted the way humans communicate, facilitating the connection between people and institutions worldwide and eliminating barriers of space and time. At this time, access to these technologies becomes a basic tool to facilitate the exercise of fundamental rights and democratic participation (e-democracy) and citizen control, education, freedom of thought and expression, access to information and public services online, the right to communicate with government electronically and administrative transparency, among others. This includes the fundamental right of access to these technologies, in particular, the right of access to the Internet or World Wide Web."[13]
Estonia: In 2000, the parliament launched a massive program to expand access to the countryside. The Internet, the government argues, is essential for life in the 21st century.[14]
Finland: By July 2010, every person in Finland was to have access to a one-megabit per second broadband connection, according to the Ministry of Transport and Communications, and by 2015, access to a 100 Mbit/s connection.[15]
France: In June 2009, the Constitutional Council, France's highest court, declared access to the Internet to be a basic human right in a strongly-worded decision that struck down portions of the HADOPI law, a law that would have tracked abusers and without judicial review automatically cut off network access to those who continued to download illicit material after two warnings[16]
Greece: Article 5A of the Constitution of Greece states that all persons have a right to participate in the Information Society and that the state has an obligation to facilitate the production, exchange, diffusion, and access to electronically transmitted information.[17]
India: In September 2019, Kerala High Court held that the right to have access to the internet is part of the fundamental Right to Education as well as the Right to Privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.[18]
Spain: Starting in 2011, Telefónica, the former state monopoly that holds the country's "universal service" contract, has to guarantee to offer "reasonably" priced broadband of at least one megabit per second throughout Spain.[19][20]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_ ... ResolutionGuns take something we can do naturally - hurl projectiles - and do so more efficiently. It's not unlike how the internet allows us to hurl our voice or our writings across the world more effectively.
Posted: Sun Jan 05, 2020 12:39 pm