A Weblog Dedicated to the Discussion of the Christian Faith and 21st Century Life

A Weblog Dedicated to the Discussion of the Christian Faith and 21st Century Life
___
I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand. For this also I believe, –that unless I believed, I should not understand.-- St. Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109)

Wednesday, June 08, 2011

Internet Access a Human Right... Really?

The United Nations has released a report arguing that Internet access is a human right. The report states,
"Given that the Internet has become an indispensable tool for realizing a range of human rights, combating inequality, and accelerating development and human progress, ensuring universal access to the Internet should be a priority for all states," said the report from Frank La Rue, a special rapporteur to the United Nations, who wrote the document "on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression."
The report goes on to argue,
The Special Rapporteur believes that the Internet is one of the most powerful instruments of the 21st century for increasing transparency in the conduct of the powerful, access to information, and for facilitating active citizen participation in building democratic societies.

Indeed, the recent wave of demonstrations in countries across the Middle East and North African region has shown the key role that the Internet can play in mobilizing the population to call for justice, equality, accountability and better respect for human rights.

I certainly agree with the UN report that the Internet has become critically significant and that it has proven itself as crucial to societies and their populations. But why argue that Internet access is a right? Readers of this blog know that I seriously question the existence of rights and the problematic arguments made for rights. For one thing there is no agreed upon criteria of what constitutes a right, which is why some have even argued that vacation time is a human right. What such arguments usually boil down to is something along the lines of "we think such and such is a good thing, therefore, it is a right."

Why not simply argue that it is critically important to give the world's populations Internet access and then encourage the many ways such universal access can happen over time in developing nations? Do we have to resort to rights language as if everyone is owed Internet access?

Moreover, I think many in our world would rather have access to adequate nourishment and clean water than surfing the Net. My guess is that Internet access is not too high on their list of needs. In addition, as an evangelical Wesleyan, I would rather focus my attention on introducing the world's people to Jesus Christ and his transforming grace. I believe they would be much better off studying the Bible and reading Wesley's "choicest pieces of practical divinity," than being able to Google whatever their little hearts desire. Of course, Internet access can assist in that endeavor, but I think there are other priorities we should focus on.

I guess in that one respect I'm old fashioned and so eighteenth century.

So be it.

11 comments:

Dave Faulkner said...

Allan,

Your view is not too dissimilar from the one I expressed on the same issue two years ago here. It generated quite a discussion at the time.

Bruce said...

There you go, "thinking" again. Using the phrase human rights has become a catch all for almost anything. You are right about food, water, and Christ. I would add a modest dwelling, basic health care.

Allan R. Bevere said...

Dave, a well written post indeed! Thanks for linking to it.

Bruce, rights language is a bottomless reservoir to give justification to what we want or what we believe others should have. It has become a term that is void of meaning.

Anonymous said...

As someone who takes the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights very seriously (I have relatives who fought and one who died to protect the rights enumerated in those documents), I take issue with your idea that rights language is a "bottomless reservoir".

The documents this country is founded upon are pretty lengthy. Lots of "rights language" there, but certainly not a bottomless pit.

- Don

Allan R. Bevere said...

Anon.

What I mean when I say rights language is a "bottomless pit" is that since no one can agree on criteria that constitutes "a right" people just pile right upon right, so that a right becomes anything that a person thinks he/she deserves or other people deserve. Thus there becomes no end to the rights people create.

Anonymous said...

So what rights do you think human beings are entitled to, Alan? Do you think the rights enumerated in the U.S. Constitution or the International Declaration of Human Rights go too far?

Both documents are about the same length, our Constitution has 27 Amendments, while the International Declaration has 30.

I would agree with you that some folks in the general public seem to think their own rights are unlimited. And at the same time, such folks don't seem to want to respect the rights of others.

But the general consensus in both the U.S. and the U.N. lists about 30 rights.

My question is, which rights, in either document, do you think are invalid, from a Christian point of view?

- Don

Allan R. Bevere said...

From a Christian point of view I don't believe in rights. The Bible never speaks of them.

WomanistNTProf said...

Considering how it is almost impossible to do some things without the internet, I would count it a human right versus the privilege of those with money to buy a computer and easy access. I was surprised that now even Ashland Seminary is only taking online registration (so we were told recently in Detroit). Some companies only take applications online for jobs. So if you do not have access in a timely manner or cannot afford it, you are at a big disadvantage. It becomes a quality of life issue; an equal access issue. I got rid of my wireless for a short while to save money. Went to the Novi library and there were so many people there trying to use the internet; mostly it seemed to search for jobs. Once I couldn't get on the internet there; I gave up going. I didn't drive to work because I was trying to save on gas! And my struggles at that time do not compare with those of others who are at a greater disadvantage -- who may not have cars and live in places where public transportation is the pits. I believe in human rights. And I believe one could make a case for them "using" the Bible. Although for me it is not necessary for me to believe in them. The Bible does not speak of civil rights per se; but I hope few Christians would argue against them as human rights.

Allan R. Bevere said...

Mitzi,

I know my view on rights is a minority opinion. I do think it is possible to justify what many call rights on other grounds.

Kevin Baker said...

I agree with the "rights" language and how problematic it can be for Christians.

On the other hand, I was somewhat fascinated by the role of the internet in this year's Arab spring and articles like this one from Sunday's New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/12/world/12internet.html

Clearly, the role of the internet has changed drastically over the last few years and it has moved from being a novelty for a privileged few to being an issue tied to access, freedom of information, and now even a work around solution to oppressive governments that want to control the flow and the content of news and information.

Peace,
Kevin

Allan R. Bevere said...

Clearly, the role of the internet has changed drastically over the last few years and it has moved from being a novelty for a privileged few to being an issue tied to access, freedom of information, and now even a work around solution to oppressive governments that want to control the flow and the content of news and information.

Agreed.