Gray 1

Wendy Gray
CST 300 Writing Lab
Brian Robertson
10/20/15
Internet Access: Basic Human Right?

These days, the Internet is slowly making its way into every aspect of our lives. From

creating and maintaining relationships, such as on eHarmony.com and Facebook, to banking,

business, gaming, and researching; the Internet has become the tool of the age where users can

participate in the world beyond the confines of their physical location. However, there exist

places where the Internet cannot be utilized to its full potential, whether because people do not

have physical access to a computer and connectivity, or because internet content is censored.

The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights defines human

rights as those inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex,

national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status (What are Human

Rights).

In 1948, the UN adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which lists thirty

articles defining rights to be considered inherent to each human being. Among these are the

right to life, liberty, and security of person, the right to freedom of movement and residence

within the borders of each state, and the right to freedom of opinion and expression

(UDHR). These articles were written with the atrocities of World War II in mind, and intended

to be applicable across nations, cultures, and time.

Former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt chaired the drafting committee with 17 other

members from varying cultures, nations, and backgrounds to produce this document, which was

considered an International Bill of Human Rights (UDHR). The UN General Assembly voted

to adopt the Declaration on December 10, 1948, and while there were eight nations abstaining
 Gray 2

from the vote, none dissented. This Declaration became the basis for human rights decisions in

the future, especially on an international level.

The Declaration also set precedents for achieving and maintaining these rights:

That every individual and every organ of society shall strive by teaching and education

to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national

and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both

among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories

under their jurisdiction. (UDHR)

In other words, institutions and individuals are expected to do whats within their power to

facilitate awareness and enforcement of these rights within their spheres of influence. This

would become a basis on how entities handle other difficulties that pertain to human rights.

In 2003, the UN commissioned the World Summit on the Information Society, or WSIS,

which convened to discuss the establishment of Information Society; 175 countries were

represented by high-ranking officials to ensure that the widest array of viewpoints were taken

into account (About WISIS, 2006). This body was created to examine the pervasiveness that the

Internet has in the modern world and discuss how that fit in with the Declaration of Human

Rights.

One important development made was the connection between the Internet and the basic

human right of freedom of opinion and expression. WSIS reiterated and agreed with the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights regarding the right of freedom of opinion and

expression, and further states that communication is a fundamental social process it is central

to the Information Society. Everyone, everywhere should have the opportunity to participate and

no one should be excluded from the benefits the Information Society offers (WSIS: Declaration,
 Gray 3

2006). Since the Internet plays a key role as an enabler of communication today, they

recognized that it therefore applies to freedom of opinion and expression with similar impact.

WSIS also discussed the disparity between those who have access to the Internet and

those who dont, which is known as the Digital Divide. This divide had been ever-widening,

since those who do have access increase their knowledge and interaction with the global world,

and those who dont are restricted to what can be obtained in their physical proximity. The

global information base available on the Internet is vast and expanding exponentially, even

recursively, thanks to the nature of the Internet itself. This is in stark contrast to that which is

available to those who do not have access, for many different reasons.

WSIS acknowledged this particular stakeholder. If internet access is declared to be a

basic human right, many types of people groups will benefit greatly. WSIS lists several,

including migrants, internally displaced persons and refugees, unemployed and underprivileged,

people, minorities, and nomadic people (WSIS: Declaration, 2006). People too poor to obtain

access often must focus their available resources on other things necessary for day to day life.

Many kinds of disabilities, such as blindness, also keep people from access. Finally,

impediments such as language barriers or remote locations without connectivity lock away the

Internet and its promise for the future.

WSIS also suggested several steps to address this problem. Taking cues from the

International Bill of Human Rights, governments are encouraged to partner with business to

develop timelines and methods to establish internet access for all. Among specifics suggested

were updating policies and laws to reflect the involvement the Internet has in todays world, and

encouraging content to be available in forms other than just electronic (WSIS: Plan, 2006).
 Gray 4

In 2010, these concepts were expanded upon further by the UN Special Rapporteur on the

promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue. His

role as an independent expert in this area caused the UN to commission him to investigate the

state of this right and communicate his findings to them in this report (Special Procedures). He

first identified two components of internet access:

Access to online content, without any restrictions except in a few limited cases permitted

under international human rights law; and the availability of the necessary infrastructure

and information communication technologies, such as cables, modems, computers and

software, to access the Internet in the first place. (La Rue, 2011)

While the aspect of infrastructure was addressed within WSIS, the second aspect of internet

content represents another source of problems in enabling internet access: institution-created

restrictions.

Several forms of restriction were discussed by La Rue, such as filtering content,

illegalization of legitimate expression, and insufficient protection of privacy, which stunts

content spread (2011). Filtering content, he claimed, as the prevention of content to users, is the

most overt form of disregard of freedom of opinion and expression since it essentially blocks the

information itself. Examples are cited of governmental blocking of YouTube, such as Thailands

blocking of videos that put the Thai king in a bad light (YouTube Censored). Although

governments may justify such acts as lawful protection from civil unrest, La Rue argues that

such censorship is made without disclosure of the type of information being blocked, and with no

third party or judicial input of the validity of the justification (2011). Only in such

circumstances, he claimed, should content be blocked.

 Gray 5

One of the few exceptions is in cases such as blocking of child pornography. La Rue

notes that while this is acceptable, measures should be taken to prevent the production of such

content in the first place; the root problem must be addressed, not just the prevention of the

distribution method (2011). In cases like these, where content is deemed clearly illegal, La Rue

makes it clear that the author of the content should be held liable, not intermediaries, such as

Internet service providers or blogging services (2011). Such intermediaries are not

governmental, he reasoned, and therefore should not bear the burden of enforcing law within

their spheres.

La Rue also references a poll taken in 2009 and 2010 from the BBC World Service. This

poll, taken of nearly 28,000 people across 26 countries, discovered that 87% of those polled

believed that access to the internet is a fundamental right of all people (Four in Five, 2010).

Highlighting the necessity of the Internet, 71% of those polled who did not use the Internet

believed they should have the right to access, and 44% felt they could not get by without it (Four

in Five, 2010). Highlighting La Rues comments regarding lack of privacy, 49% did not feel that

the internet is a safe place to express my opinions (Four in Five, 2010).

All these reports and declarations reveal who will benefit if internet access is considered

a basic human right. If access is universally available, all individuals will have the ability to

express themselves and gather information online, without concern for censorship or privacy

infringement. They will also have access to physical components necessary for access, and will

not be constrained by disability, language, or other barriers. A Human Right, an initiative group

with the aim to make internet access a human right, points out that the internet brings with it

economic opportunity, ability to participate in society on a global level, education, critical

communication in times such as disaster relief, and even healthcare capabilities (A Human Right,
 Gray 6

2015). There are innumerable ways that universal internet access will benefit the individuals of

the world.

Intermediary institutions will also benefit. They will not be held liable for content

distributed, as that would fall under the purview of governmental bodies; even if such must be

set up specifically for such regulation. La Rue points out that minorities and other marginalized

peoples could potentially lessen these distinctions since they would be able to express

themselves and raise awareness of their condition online to a much wider-spread audience than

they would without the Internet (2011). For instance, European gypsies, who may not currently

have access due to their poverty level and nomadic lifestyle, would stand to gain with consistent

access, as they would be able to shed light on their culture and dispel some of the stigma that

their name still holds today.

However, if so, existing governmental bodies will be expected to take the steps outlined

in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that will enable these things. They would need to

set up processes through which to make the changes needed to give access to their citizens, and

for some nations, this will be a difficult thing. Many nations, especially third-world countries,

simply do not have the resources to make these changes themselves and must rely on outside

sources and initiatives to help bring them into the modern day of internet access. La Rue

mentions several, such as the UN supported One Laptop Per Child project, which distributes

laptops specialized for childhood education (2011).

Governments would also need to be concerned with maintaining order within their

purview. Internet access, since at this point is so unregulated, gives government the enormous

task of regulating it to protect their people, without inhibiting expression and guarding privacy.
 Gray 7

Again, this task would take considerable resources that underdeveloped nations may not have

access to.

So the question remains, should internet access be considered a human right? While

freedom of opinion and expression is a right that is generally uncontested today, that may or may

not extend to cover internet access. According to the UNs Declaration of Human Rights, the

right to freedom of opinion also includes freedom to hold opinions without interference, and to

seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers

(UDHR). Clearly, the Internet is the most prevalent form of media today that enables the

exchange of information, so it distinctly falls under this category. It can be said that since the

Internet is such an important medium, it therefore is a human right, since lack of access, in a very

real way today, means lack of information and the inability to express oneself in an equal way to

the rest of the world.

The Internet also plays a key role in other rights listed on the Declaration that, such as the

right to employment, the right to take part in the government of ones country, the right to

education, and the right to share in the scientific advancement and its benefits (UDHR). All of

these are significantly reduced for a person without access to the Internet.

However, there are many reasons why internet access becoming a human right should not

happen. For instance, it is not a necessity of day to day life, such as food and water. As US

Commissioner Michael ORielly points out in his address to the Internet Innovation Alliance in

June of 2015, People can and do live without Internet access, and many lead very successful

lives (2015). The BBC poll also demonstrates this in that 55% of those polled could live

without the Internet (Four out of Five 2010). The Internet, indeed, is not a fundamental part of

human life.
 Gray 8

Human rights are the most basic of rights, predicated solely on a persons identity as

Homo Sapiens. They are intended to be applicable across any location and across time.

However, this title is too extreme to bestow upon the right to internet access. ORielly points out

that Human rights are standards of behavior that are inherent in every human being. They are

the core principles underpinning human interaction in society (ORielly, 2015). While he

recognized the considerable role the Internet plays in the world today, he emphasizes that the

right to internet access still cannot be considered on the same level as these basic rights.

Co-founder of the Internet, Vinton Cerf, explains it further in the New York Times by

making the distinction between the technology that enables these human rights and the rights

themselves (Cerf, 2012). He claims that technology is ever-changing, and designation as a

human right will lead to valuing the wrong things (2012). He presents this poignant example

to highlight the difference:

At one time if you didnt 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, Im not sure where I would put it. (Cerf, 2012).

Going back to the Declaration of Human Rights mentioned earlier, each of the thirty articles are

as relevant today as they were in 1948, when they were adopted by the United Nations. They

were written broadly enough so as to be applicable no matter what the state of the world was.

Internet access, however, while extremely relevant now and for the foreseeable future, may not

always take such a significant role, similar to a horses relative triviality today.

My recommendation is that the title of human right is too fundamental to give to internet

access, it should be something to strive for just the same. Yes, it is an enabler, perhaps the

greatest enabler today of freedom of expression, education, et cetera, but it should not take the
 Gray 9

title of human right primarily because it is impossible to discern just what kind of role the

Internet will take in the future.

That being said, universal internet access is still critical today for the furthering of society

on a global level. Steps should be taken to attain access for all, and the steps provided by the

UDHR can stand as a valuable framework to make that happen. Awareness, education, and

partnering with applicable businesses and organizations are needed to accomplish this goal

(UDHR). Many nations have already taken these kinds of initiatives to provide access to their

citizens.

According to La Rue, Indias National I-Governance Plan of 2006, in conjunction with

the private sector, set up over 87,00 public points of internet access called e-Kisoks as of 2011

(La Rue, 2011). He also takes note of Brazils government, which had set up over 100,000

similar public places of internet access called Local Area Network (LAN) Houses (La Rue,

2011). In 2009, Finland passed a regulation that required internet speed to be at least one

Megabit per second on a broadband level, establishing the quality of the internet connection for

its citizens (La Rue, 2011). Other governments could easily set up policies and establishments

such as this to provide access to their population that could not necessarily access the Internet in

another way.

Governments should also set up regulatory bodies specifically for the Internet. These

bodies should not alter existing laws, but clearly define the interpretation the law should take

within the environment of the Internet. According to a BSR case study in 2013 and 2014, the

Global Network Initiative has been partnering with several stakeholders in these issues to

develop clear guidelines for such bodies, to uphold law and order as well as to protect users

rights and privacy (BSR, 2014).

 Gray 10

For instance, clear specifications should be given for scenarios in which censorship

should take place, and in the event of such censorship, the public should be made aware of the

type of censorship. In other words, if certain information should be withheld from the public, the

public should have the right to know of the existence of the withheld information, and the reason

for withholding it.

In many cases, such as in child pornography, the underlying problem has nothing to do

with the Internet being the distribution method, and should be addressed in addition to the

Internet censorship. This theoretically would address the underlying issue and cut down on the

instances of the censorship itself. La Rue maintains that nothing should block expression via the

Internet, unless there is a clear and direct probability that such expression can instigate violence

(La Rue, 2011).

Business also have some substantial incentive to take similar initiatives, since they can

reach a wider consumer base for their products and services. The exposure value that such

projects can give them is noteworthy as well. For example, Google has been developing LTE-

carrying balloons that can provide internet to remote and isolated areas (Project Loon). The

mobile nature of such devices can allow them to be used in cases of emergency situations, or

simply to move to another inaccessible location once an area has been sufficiently connected

(Project Loon). This allows them to function as a short-term solution to the problem of internet

access, giving government time to establish more permanent forms of access while giving people

the benefits of the internet in the interim.

Organizations such as A Human Right have also been raising awareness and taking steps

to attain universal internet access. For instance, in 2012, upon learning of a proposed internet

cable that would pass the isolated British island of St. Helena, A Human Right successfully
 Gray 11

petitioned for the cable to be moved 500 kilometers from its intended path to connect the 4,200

residents (2015). They estimated that this connectivity brought a 21% increase in economic

growth.

A Human Right has also encouraged and facilitate other remote people groups to

purchase satellites from bankrupt companies and reposition them to provide access to the remote

locations (2015). The media coverage generated by this act brought even more awareness of the

Digital Divide. It is their hope that such acts will further incentivize government and the private

sector to bridge the gap.

Each individuals support of initiatives such as those described here will also help to

further this cause. Raising awareness of the reality that is the Digital Divide is perhaps the best

way for a single person to play a role toward that objective. The Internet itself is a superb tool in

facilitating that spread of awareness.

Some nations have more to accomplish since they do not currently acknowledge the

current human rights such as the right to freedom of opinion and expression. The North Korean

government, for instance, requires all radios to broadcast only government-approved stations

(Chun, 2008). Nations such as this first consider their security as a nation before individual

rights. North Korea must first recognize the value of the right to freedom of opinion and

expression before establishing general internet access as a national goal.

The Internet today is a valuable and important tool in human life, from education to

communication. However, it is not a fundamental component to human life and it therefore

should not be eligible for the title of human right. Nonetheless, it is critical to pursue universal

access on individual, business, governmental, and global levels so that every individual can

participate in a society that is becoming more and more dependent on the Internet for human life
 Gray 12

components such as education and communication. Perhaps the World Summit on the

Information Society frames this aim the best:

We are collectively entering a new era of enormous potential, that of the Information

Society and expanded human communication. In this emerging society, information and

knowledge can be produced, exchanged, shared and communicated through all the

networks of the world. All individuals can soon, if we take the necessary actions, together

build a new Information Society based on shared knowledge and founded on global

solidarity and a better mutual understanding between peoples and nations. (WSIS:

Declaration, 2006)
 Gray 13

References

About WSIS. (2008, March 26). Retrieved October 15, 2015, from

http://www.itu.int/net/wsis/basic/about.html

A Human Right: Everyone Connected. (2015). Retrieved October 23, 2015 , from

http://ahumanright.org/

Bsr report 2013-2014 case study | global network initiative: Protecting human rights in the digital

age. (2014). Newstex Global Business Blogs.

Cerf, V. (2012, January 4). Internet Access Is Not A Human Right. Retrieved September 30,

2015, from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/opinion/internet-access-is-not-a-human-

right.html?_r=1

Chun, S. (2008, February 27). Radio gives hope to North and South Koreans. Retrieved October

23, 2015, from

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/02/27/cho.dissidentradio/index.html

Four in five regard internet access as fundamental right: Global poll. (2010, July 3). Retrieved

October 15, 2015, from

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2010/03_march/07/poll.shtml

General Assembly 3rd session - 3rd Committee. (2015, August 3). Retrieved October 15, 2015

from http://research.un.org/en/undhr/ga/thirdcommittee.

La Rue, F. (2011, May 16). Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of

the right to freedom of opinion and expression. Retrieved from

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/A.HRC.17.27_en.pdf

Mathiesen, K. (2014). Human rights for the digital age. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 29(1), 2-

18.
 Gray 14

Project Loon. (n.d.). Retrieved October 21, 2015, from https://www.google.com/loon/how/

Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. (n.d.). Retrieved October 15, 2015, from

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/SP/Pages/Welcomepage.aspx

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UDHR, Declaration of Human Rights, Human

Rights Declaration, Human Rights Charter, The Un and Human Rights. (n.d.). Retrieved

October 22, 2015, from http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/.

What are Human Rights. (n.d.). Retrieved October 22, 2015, from

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Pages/WhatareHumanRights.aspx.

WSIS: Declaration of Principles. (n.d.). Retrieved October 22, 2015, from

http://www.itu.int/net/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html

WSIS: Plan of Action. (n.d.). Retrieved October 15, 2015, from

http://www.itu.int/net/wsis/docs/geneva/official/poa.html

YouTube Censored: A Recent History. (n.d.). Retrieved October 20, 2015, from

https://opennet.net/youtube-censored-a-recent-history