Posted on 06/08/2011 7:48:29 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Nothing is a ‘right’ if someone has to give it to you................
RE: The right to PURCHASE Internet Access MIGHT be a Human Right.
The idiots at the UN misunderstand the Declaration of Independence ( as do a lot of American politicians and non-taxpayers today ).
The right to PURSUE Happiness is a human right. Achieving happiness is NOT.
Unfortunately, many people confuse the two and think that they are one and the same.
Brilliant.
Rights are innate, we have them by virtue of being born. Rights are not something you purchase, or are entitled to by virtue of enslaving someone else.
So is the UN giong to force the king of Togo to provide access to his people.
The UN will provide the means to achieve anonymity from fellow users--but since they provide the means, they can still keep track of everyone.
Not if history is our guide... The American people will have to provide it.
To be paid for by whom?
Rights, Rights, Rights! When everyone has “Rights” no one has rights!
I declare access to the UN’s bank accounts a Human Right.
Call me when mine is ready.
Ping.
See “universal service” as posited by Theodore Vail, the man who built the Bell System.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Newton_Vail
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsbury_Commitment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_service
The UN is proof that the more you centralize government, the more you concentrate insanity.
....as long as they are in control and we pay the bill for the gimmee, gimmee crowd.
*shakes head*
The assault on individual rights continues.
So the next time my wife tells me that I need to get off the Net and come to bad, I can reply “But the UN says I have abasic right to the Internet! Are you to argue with the UN?”
At which point, she’ll probably throw something at me.
What the hell does the FCC have to do with local journalism? Under what authority?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/09/business/media/09press.html?_r=1&ref=media
A Federal Study Finds That Local Reporting Has Waned
On Thursday, Mr. Steven Waldman, a former journalist for Newsweek and U.S. News and World Report, is to issue a number of recommendations, none binding. Those include making actual in-the-field reporting a part of the curriculum at journalism schools, steering more government advertising money toward local instead of national media and changing the tax code to encourage donations to nonprofit media organizations.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/57454752/FCC-Report-THE-INFORMATION-NEEDS-OF-COMMUNITIES
THE INFORMATION NEEDSOF COMMUNITIES
The changing media landscapein a broadband age
Steven Waldman and the Working Group on Information Needs of Communities
June 2011
This New World Order thing sure isn't shaping up very well.
Local media requirement is a decades-old issue on the FCC, going back to the days of a finite spectrum limiting the number of people (content sources) who could broadcast in an area. If one of those limited broadcasters was purchased by a national organization, it could result in only national-level news being reported. Enough such purchases, and only national corporations control the news, nobody knows what’s going on at the local level, which is a bad thing. It was part of the FCC’s “public interest” mission when the public airways were being used. In exchange for a portion of the spectrum, broadcasters agreed to certain public interest provisions.
I don’t think this translates well into the Internet age though. The number of content sources is effectively unlimited. Any idiot with a smartphone and a YouTube account can effectively be a local reporter who can afford to broadcast to an audience as big as the large national news sources (but this is true only with net neutrality). It looks like they’ve realized that since the study only suggests things to encourage more local reporting, doesn’t mandate anything.
I know, “It’s a slippery slope, they only suggest now, but those Marxists will be mandating it later!!!!” Remember, they have been mandating it for decades. No slippery slope, we’ve been at the bottom of it for years on this issue.
You start a good thought. The right to keep and bear arms doesn't guarantee you possession of weapons, only that the government can't prevent you from acquiring and possessing them. I would agree everyone has the right to access the Internet the same way, as in the government should not prevent one from doing so. It's an issue of freedom of speech, as I am exercising via the Internet right now.
However, you know they're talking about what they like to call a "positive" right. The government must make sure you have it if you can't afford it yourself. You know, I'm okay with that, as long as we address the 2nd Amendment the same way. If Joe down the street is getting free DSL, I want my free Kimber 1911.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.