l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 1 by Vic Laurie
Many have been arguing that access to the Internet is a basic human right to
be included with Thomas Jefferson’s “unalienable” rights of Life,
Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Vint Cerf, often called the father of
the Internet, says this claim is confusing the actual basic rights with a
particular mechanism for enabling them. In a New York Times Op-Ed piece, he
writes:
But that argument, however well meaning, misses a larger point:
technology is an enabler of rights, not a right itself. There is a high bar
for something to be considered a human right. Loosely put, it must be among
the things we as humans need in order to lead healthy, meaningful lives,
like freedom from torture or freedom of conscience. It is a mistake to place
any particular technology in this exalted category, since over time we will
end up valuing the wrong things. For example, at one time if you didn’t
have a horse it was hard to make a living. But the important right in that
case was the right to make a living, not the right to a horse. Today, if I
were granted a right to have a horse, I’m not sure where I would put it.
While in no way downplaying the role of the Internet in helping people to be
informed and to voice their opinion, I think Cerf may have a point. What’s
your opinion? Is Internet access a basic human right that everyone is
entitled to? | l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 2 He nailed it. Too many Americans sadly have no idea what a “right” is
anymore.
Rights impose prohibitions on people’s behavior. Needs impose obligations.
That’s the litmus test.
I may not deny you the right to your life by walking up to you (or anyone
else) on the street, taking out a gun and shooting them. We each have the
right to our own lives, so long as we do not infringe on anyone else’s
right to the same. Those who do infringe, we consider criminals.
But while we all arguably “need” food, no one has a “right” to it. To
claim food is my “right” is to imply that someone (other than myself) is
obligated to provide it for me. This is paramount to claiming I have the “
right” to enslave others, in the service of maintaining my own life.
We have the right to maintain our own lives and others may not infringe on
that. But nobody can (properly) claim the “right” to enslave another.
Because obviously, slavery is a blatant denial of basic and actual human
rights.
I blame our educational system for this modern day confusion but that’s
another story. | c****n
发帖数: 21367 | 3 although Vint Cerf is a man full of bullshit, and a thief to the
title of "father of Internet", this paragraph about rights of life
is correct and well presented.
to
of
he
bar
among
【在 l****z 的大作中提到】
: by Vic Laurie
: Many have been arguing that access to the Internet is a basic human right to
: be included with Thomas Jefferson’s “unalienable” rights of Life,
: Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Vint Cerf, often called the father of
: the Internet, says this claim is confusing the actual basic rights with a
: particular mechanism for enabling them. In a New York Times Op-Ed piece, he
: writes:
: But that argument, however well meaning, misses a larger point:
: technology is an enabler of rights, not a right itself. There is a high bar
: for something to be considered a human right. Loosely put, it must be among
|
|
