A report to the United Nations from special rapporteur Frank La Rue suggests that the Internet is a key means for individuals to exercise their right to freedom of opinion and expression. The document is Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression (May 16, 2011).
The report references Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states:
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.
Michael Geist has commented on the topic, there was a blog post at the Law Librarian Blog, an episode of CBC's The Current. But there has been no discussion about this yet on Slaw.
Geist chose this quote to highlight the issues covered in the report:
The Special Rapporteur considers cutting off users from Internet access, regardless of the justification provided, including on the grounds of violating intellectual property rights law, to be disproportionate and thus a violation of article 19, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Special Rapporteur calls upon all States to ensure that Internet access is maintained at all times, including during times of political unrest. In particular, the Special Rapporteur urges States to repeal or amend existing intellectual copyright laws which permit users to be disconnected from Internet access, and to refrain from adopting such laws.
The UN recognizes democracy as one of its core values. Is global, open access to the Internet creating democracy or simply promoting it?
I wonder if this is something of a "category error"?
As a matter of policy, both the Canadian and U.S. governments contributed money and effort to rural electrification, to near-universal availability of telephones, and now to rural high-speed internet.
At the same time, none of the existing human rights legislation that I know of considers access to any of these a right.
Methinks we need a phrase, like the U.S. "pursuit of happiness", which sums up things which one may or may not chose to have, but which cannot be frivolously denied to us…
–dave
Dave, interesting ideas in your comment. I personally think of human rights as freedom TOs (express yourself) rather than freedom FROMs (being denied an opportunity to express yourself in a particular forum). I wonder if Mr. La Rue and the UN sees human rights as fundamental freedoms given their broader world experience.
Charter s.2 for convenience:
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
I definitely see the Special Rapporteur as treating it as a human right, much like freedom of expression, when he calls upon all States to ensure that Internet access is maintained at all times, including during times of political unrest.
This is consistent with the rural telephony and internet initiatives, but different in nature from the rural electrification initiative.
In the first two cases, the government is enabling us to exercise our rights, while in the latter it is more narrowly doing something economically desirable.
I suspect all three are done for mixed reasons, with economics a significant factor to the some of the parties, and encouraging and even creating democracy that of others.
And, to finally get to your point, in Canada, I think we're merely promoting democracy. In Libya, he's actively trying to create it!
–dave
In my opinion human rights require both freedoms TO (positive freedom) and freedoms FROM (negative freedom) as they are inextricably linked. In order to have the freedom to do something you must be free from interference, obstacles etc. Those who emphasize the importance of negative freedom over positive freedom fail to highlight that they are seeking freedom from interference (governmental usually) not to stay idle, but rather, to engage in market activities etc.