Internet Access and Human Rights Law

internet human rights law

Does Internet human rights law exist?

What is Internet Human Rights Law?

Internet Human Rights Law concerns questions about how government regulation and monitoring of people in their internet activities curbs individual liberty and violates basic human rights. However, some would contend that Internet human rights law does not exist because online access is a luxury instead of a human right.

As the internet has become more prevalent and popular, governments across the world have enacted laws which restrict internet usage, or which in some other way regulate those who are able to use and access the internet. This can take the form of blatant censorship of internet sites which a government disapproves of, pressure put on internet service providers (ISPs) to restrict access to some websites, and legal action against individuals who break a myriad of copyright laws while dealing with data on the internet.

Where is Internet Human Rights Law particularly being violated?

Most famously, the government of China censors a variety of topics from being able to be accessed. For example, a search for ‘democracy’ or ‘human rights’ on the internet in China will yield far different and more limited results than searching for those terms in other countries would. China has even been known to jail people who write on internet weblogs (bloggers) if their content expresses dissatisfaction with the Chinese status quo.

Other examples of Internet Human Rights Law can be seen in how some governments (including Egypt) are allowed to shut down the internet in times of serious emergency. Even the industrialized nations of France and the United Kingdom are dabbling with internet censorship as groups in both nations have passed legislation punishing individuals for their internet activities. In the UK and France people who violate copyright laws may be prohibited from accessing the internet in its entirety.

What does Internet Human Rights Law mean for the future of the internet?

Governments around the world claim that Internet Human Rights Law is not violated by the measures implemented to censor and restrict access to the internet. Governments further claim that these efforts are necessary to protect intellectual property and copyrighted/trademarked images from duplication and abuse. Others in government claim that the internet needs to be regulated to ensure the security and safety of all citizens.

Opponents of government regulation claim that Internet Human Rights Law is something that needs to be more vigorously studied and understood. These individuals assert that the government should in the interests of promoting and maintaining freedom of speech avoid any regulation of the internet whatsoever. These Internet human rights law advocates claim that the Web has been a driving force for innovation and for human freedom, most especially seen through the recent internet-fueled Middle East revolutions to hit Egypt, Libya and Tunisia.

Censorship: China Silences YouTube

censorship-chinaIf a Tibetan monk is beaten by a soldier and video of the human rights violation is censored, did the beating occur? The Chinese thugocracy has blocked YouTube access because it is afraid of letting its citizens see what is happening in Tibet.

It is unrealistic to expect that First Amendment free speech freedoms enjoyed in the United States would apply worldwide. However, there is no reason to condone censorship designed to suppress the truth about human rights abuses inflicted upon others.

How many monks must be tortured and killed before we stand up and shout “Enough!”

The elephant in the room that no one wants to address because of “free trade principles” is the ability of the G-8 countries to topple the ChiCom regime by slapping 1000% tariffs on all of its exports until such time as Tibet is freed (and the persecution of the Dalai Lama and the monks ceases). Until we flex our collective financial might, China will continue to commit crimes against humanity.

There are some who claim China will retaliate by dumping U.S. debt that it has purchased over the years. There are two responses to this. To buy what? Not many bargains out there these days, particularly if there’s a solid stance against the regime by the G-8. Secondly, are our ethics so situational that a few attrocities are okay as long if it doesn’t inconvenience us? Western civilization will fall if we don’t stand for something other than a right to watch “American Idol” without it being preempted by an Obama press conference.

China has drawn a line in the sand when it comes to fundamental human rights. Even beating foreigners abroad who support Tibet’s freedom.

YouTube Preview Image

The Chicom government is counting on its size for us to ignore human rights abuses no different than those committed in Darfur.

What do you think? Will we cross the line and demand fundamental freedoms or simply fiddle as Tibet burns?