How about no and just no. Isn't education a human right? And even it is paid for. Isn't electricity one of those infrastructural rights? And here is South Africa that is the one thing that, thanks to incompatent management and people, is now constantly being interrupted because the upgrade funds were turned out as bonuses for doing a crap job.
So no, there are far FAR more important issues to be addressed. Can't get purified water to people but give them wired or wireless internet access? Absurd.
If Internet Access is a Human Right, then why oh why do you need to have money (or the financial means) to access it in the first place? Seriously, this is a joke. We had the ability to produce abundance via technology since 1929 along with alternative energy sources, completely get rid of money in the process... but instead of actually for example feeding everyone on the planet, we have about 1.3 billion people starving, even though we've been producing enough food to feed 10 billion annually per year since just over 30 years ago. Sorry... if something is to be declared a 'human right', then it shouldn't involve money as a means to gain access to it - this would include food, shelter, power, transportation, relevant education, clean air, clean water, etc. (which are basic human needs) - and we still live on a planet where we have to PAY in order to survive. Sick...
[citation][nom]demarest[/nom]I hope this was meant facetiously. On a planet of 7 billion people, the concept of never being offended is a fantasy. To the point, 99% of the time somebody claims to be offended, it's merely a power play to control the actions of others, often inspired by self-righteousness. That truly is offensive. Moreso that so many people entertain the fantasy so far as to dictate public policy. You cannot make compassion compulsory no matter how "better" you believe such a thing would be.[/citation]
[citation][nom]kcorp2003[/nom]remember its no longer a freedom of expression once it offends someone. with that said. HOORAH![/citation]
Everything will offend someone, kind of the reason that freedom of expression had to be protected in the first place
[citation][nom]Camikazi[/nom]Everything will offend someone, kind of the reason that freedom of expression had to be protected in the first place[/citation]
The only speech that needs protecting is offensive speech.
[citation][nom]Camikazi[/nom]Everything will offend someone, kind of the reason that freedom of expression had to be protected in the first place[/citation]But what he is saying is that here in the USA, you have "freedom of expression", but it is limited. For example, you can get in trouble for saying something "racist". Unless it is racist against white people, then it's OK. For example, cracker, honkey, blanco, wonder bread, mayonnaise, saltine, whitey.
Like many ideas, the UN had more promise at its inception than what it could ultimately deliver. When the UN formed it had the (naïve) vision that in the wake of WWII nations would give up some sovereignty and create a political cooperative the world over. In reality few if any nations actually want to cede any authority to anyone beyond their borders for anything, thus the UN is little more than a board room where nations get together and argue a lot of stuff, sometimes accomplishing something. The UN does do some worthwhile stuff that doesn't get a lot of publicity or attention, but they certainly aren't the most effective organization in the world.
On Thursday, the United Nations Human Rights Council passed a landmark resolution (PDF) supporting freedom of expression on the Internet.
There is a BIG difference between freedom of expression over the internet and the right of having internet service. Misleading titles ftw.
They are telling you you ca say anything you want on it (as we do now-recklessly), as long as you can afford your ISP fees.