All you've done is repeat what I've already replied to.TheCorpseMan99 said:
If you can give an example of where SOPA violates this, then I'll have something new to reply to.
SOPA, PIP and ACTA, Violating Human Rights?
- Thread starter The Name's Bond
- Start date
Recommended Videos
If you can give an example of where SOPA violates this, then I'll have something new to reply to.
The problem with human rights is people forget what kind of individuals pass for humans:
Criminals, terrorists, dictators, rapists, murderers, etc.
Human rights would mean what they have an inalienable right to their like as well. You don't want a situation of: "oooh no, we can't kill that dangerous terrorists, he's a human, and INCREDIBLY BROAD category shared with even little innocent babies. He has a right to, life I guess. You can't kill toddlers - human rights - so you can't kill a dangerous terrorists... wait"
The alternative is worse, to start arbitrarily declaring certain individuals as not human.
I'm much more a fan of civil rights. Those who are decent, good and without malice and how follow the good laws should be entitled to protection. Not those who flagrantly and dangerously abuse it. Prisoners rights should be an entirely separate issue.
Criminals, terrorists, dictators, rapists, murderers, etc.
Human rights would mean what they have an inalienable right to their like as well. You don't want a situation of: "oooh no, we can't kill that dangerous terrorists, he's a human, and INCREDIBLY BROAD category shared with even little innocent babies. He has a right to, life I guess. You can't kill toddlers - human rights - so you can't kill a dangerous terrorists... wait"
The alternative is worse, to start arbitrarily declaring certain individuals as not human.
I'm much more a fan of civil rights. Those who are decent, good and without malice and how follow the good laws should be entitled to protection. Not those who flagrantly and dangerously abuse it. Prisoners rights should be an entirely separate issue.
The trouble with this is that human rights are largely accepted to be universal and egalitarian in application (across the entire human population).
Access to technology is neither of those things. Therefore, restricting it is not restricting basic human rights. We accept human rights as rights you are born to, simply by dint of being a human being. To argue that unfettered internet access is a human right would also imply that so is access to your telephone, your fax machine, your cable, etc., and that anyone depriving you of that is interfering in your human rights. But the simple truth is that as a technological service, some areas of the globe simply aren't covered. Therefore, it is not a human right.
Moreover, I feel like declaring that unfettered internet access (available only to the wealthy minority of the current human population) is a human right only really serves to diminish other more important human rights, such as free speech, the freedom from oppression and torture, etc. That's what you're saying internet access is equal to, just to put it in perspective.
Access to technology is neither of those things. Therefore, restricting it is not restricting basic human rights. We accept human rights as rights you are born to, simply by dint of being a human being. To argue that unfettered internet access is a human right would also imply that so is access to your telephone, your fax machine, your cable, etc., and that anyone depriving you of that is interfering in your human rights. But the simple truth is that as a technological service, some areas of the globe simply aren't covered. Therefore, it is not a human right.
Moreover, I feel like declaring that unfettered internet access (available only to the wealthy minority of the current human population) is a human right only really serves to diminish other more important human rights, such as free speech, the freedom from oppression and torture, etc. That's what you're saying internet access is equal to, just to put it in perspective.