Article

2012-03-12 India-Pakistan

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2012-03-12 00:00|| || Front Page|| [1 views ] Top
File under: Govt of Pakistan

#1 One final niggling detail: Internet filters don't work. The 2009 Iranian election, spreading discontent in China, and the Arab Spring -- these events have shown that Internet blocks don't prevent citizens from using digital and social media technologies for political activism.

Maybe, unless the likes of Siemens and Nokia step in to ensure the deaths of activist bloggers.

Posted by gorb 2012-03-12 00:49|| 2012-03-12 00:49|| Front Page Top

#2 Internet access is a human right, in as far as it's a form of speech that governments have no role in.

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2012-03-12 06:16|| 2012-03-12 06:16|| Front Page Top

#3 Government does have a role.

The cable that comes to your house and business? The wireless that your smartphone and laptop sniffs? Regulated by government. Someone had to enforce certain technical standards and ensure orderly deployment into the public land and airwaves. Those cables don't lay themselves.

Add to that the standards (such as they are) for use and the taxes paid (hundred fifty year tradition going back to the telegraph), and yes, government has a role.

What we don't want is government regulating internet content. Good luck.

Posted by Steve White 2012-03-12 07:34|| 2012-03-12 07:34|| Front Page Top

#4 Governments role is just to enforce contract between private parties (and perhaps defend patents that enable them).

There's no need for them to insert themselves without invitation.

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2012-03-12 08:42|| 2012-03-12 08:42|| Front Page Top

#5 I posted the article to go with the one we had a few days ago about the lady whose human right to a parking place had been violated.

As usual the "human right" is the representation of the actual "God-given right" that underlies it.

In the case of the parking place it's the right of privacy, to be left alone to do as you please unless you're harming someone else. The argument comes over the definition of "harm." I lean toward the idea of "no blood, no harm," myself. Even if someone parking his/her/its car on the grass is ugly you'll probably survive the experience.

The same applies to the "human right" of the internet. The inhabitants of Lower Slobbovia or Ice Station Omega have no "right" to the internet, anymore than you or I do.

   if{
    it's available
   }then{
    y'gotta pay for it
   }

That's not a right, it's a commodity.

The actual "human right" lies in the content, which is what this author was actually talking about. The "God-given" right is that of free and unfettered speech -- which includes perhaps especially the freedom to mock and deride politicians, maybe government in general, the military, holy men, and even (gasp!) religion.

I would have a hard time becoming a "human rights expert" because they're greasy, oily things that are so damned hard to pin down. (The "human rights" more than the "experts," though the experts exhibit many of the same characteristics...) Often "human rights" equate to the end result of a basic liberty (let's call them that to distinguish the two and avoid typing "God-given rights" and firing up the atheist crowd.) Almost invariably they are granted by government. The Soviet constitution, if I remember, contained among other goodies a "right to employment" and the "right to housing." The children of all ages who turned out to Occupy [Insert Location Here] were demanding the "human right" to have their college loans annulled, to absolutely free housing, and a dozen or so other things, some of which sounded good at first blush but which on consideration were pretty stoopid.

Posted by Fred 2012-03-12 10:37|| 2012-03-12 10:37|| Front Page Top

#6 >>Pakistain's luddite politicians may not realise this, but in the 21st century, the freedom of the Internet is a gauge of a country's genuine commitment to democracy and human rights

I will try to remember that back-patting comments like that, and not laugh, when America tries to pass things like SOPA and ACTA into law. ACTA has been passed there. And I would bet all the money in my pockets that 90 percent of Rantburgians have no idea what its content contains.

Posted by Mizzou Mafia 2012-03-12 11:59|| 2012-03-12 11:59|| Front Page Top

#7 Degrading the term again, I see. At least it's not as bad as the idiot in Ottawa (ok, redundant) that thinks having a parking space in front of your house is a "human right"...

Posted by mojo 2012-03-12 14:56|| 2012-03-12 14:56|| Front Page Top

#8 Fred, I love it when you you dig up these gems. But you are an expert in Human Rights! Everyone is, about their own rights of course, everyone is a tad Myopic after that.

As for the parking "rights" -lets see the claimed right to use publically owned property (a street) for ones own private purposes. Sounds like squatters rights if anything,and worth as much. No wait -it does sound like Ottawa!

Posted by Northern Cousin 2012-03-12 15:21|| 2012-03-12 15:21|| Front Page Top

#9 A right is a restriction on government.

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2012-03-12 16:57|| 2012-03-12 16:57|| Front Page Top

#10 Freedom of speech (as well as Freedom of Religion) is a human right in that all humans have a basic right to say what they want or believe whatever God(s) or not they wish. Weather their government allows them to is a different story.

This also pertains to the 'content' of the Internet.

I think there must be some limits however. Yelling 'Fire!' in a Theater (or Whitesnake concert) is one - it can cause direct harm to someone else. Sending out millions of spam emails is another - it can prevent others from being able to use their email.

Saying that God is dead, is alive, is an imaginary friend, or is Allah, Allan, Cthulhu, Obama (has anyone ever seen those two at the same time?), or whatever (or simply saying God exists) is a 'right'. Even saying that a particular religion is vile and their 'god' is pathetic is also protected - or should be.

Unfortunately Human Rights has been abused to mean just about anything. Parking, Income, Food, Cellphone, Housing, Internet access, Healthcare, etc... And worst of all the 'human right not to be offended'.

Those are *not* rights - you may have the right to have the ability to access those things - but you do not have a direct right *to* those things.
By that I mean you have should be able to access those things (provided you are able to - usually meaning you can afford it or have the means). (Or, for example, to turn away from that which offends you, turn off the TV or radio or simply leave the room - but not silence the speaker.

Unless you own the private forum - for example you can't spam, threaten, or encourage violence on Rantburg - that is not a right - and Fred - who 'owns' Rantburg, (or his delegated Mods) can remove your postings, sinktrap them or outright ban you.

Posted by CrazyFool 2012-03-12 18:48|| 2012-03-12 18:48|| Front Page Top

23:38 trailing wife
23:32 trailing wife
23:31 trailing wife
23:22 USN, Ret.
23:07 USN, Ret.
22:47 Jusomble Whinens3272
22:44 George Ebbeamp4828
22:34 Thing From Snowy Mountain
22:25 g(r)omgoru
22:13 Jusomble Whinens3272
22:04 JosephMendiola
21:52 JosephMendiola
21:45 JosephMendiola
21:27 Frank G
21:26 JosephMendiola
21:24 Frank G
21:21 JosephMendiola
21:20 Pappy
21:17 SteveS
21:06 Alaska Paul
20:49 Anonymoose
20:04 remoteman
20:02 Frank G
19:52 Procopius2k