Finland has become the first country in the world to declare that high speed internet access is a legal right. Finnish telecommunications companies will be required to provide the 5.2 million people of Finland with internet access at a speed of one megabit per second.
The argument is pretty simple and seems to make sense, “We think [the internet is] something you cannot live without in modern society. Like banking services or water or electricity, you need an internet connection. Universal service is every citizen’s subjective right.” (Laura Vikkonen, Ministry of Transport and Communications)
The internet is a wondrous invention that has spurred creation, economic activity, criminal enterprise and pushed the boundaries of freedom of speech. The internet is important, but the addition of broadband internet access to the list of human rights (subjective or objective) is not logical for moral and economic reasons. Although, this notion is very admirable and progressive.
Human rights are defined by the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights as being, “rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status.”
Human rights serve a purpose. The rights of freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom to assemble have been key components to most Western democracies. Similarly, the right to accumulate property and to prosper has led to breakthroughs in science and capitalism.
In the 1600’s the debate over the right to property and the rights to oneself was raging. Thomas Hobbes first pinned the notion of a right to individual property and John Locke greatly expanded on this idea.
According to Locke, I own myself, “yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself.”
When these words were written a new age of humanity came into existence. The words of John Locke propelled into being a whole new nation in the United States and the age of capitalism began.
We are living the in the age of communication right now. We are interconnected at an ever increasingly high rate and we experience the internet in many of our daily lives. My concern is not with the internet itself, but rather the end goals we are trying to accomplish.
What is the goal of listing ‘broadband internet access’ as a human right?
The goal is undoubtedly meant to foster in a greater economic and social role for the internet. The sense I get from this decision is that Finland doesn’t want any of their citizens to miss out on the internet. This is admirable.
However, the moral implications associated with equating internet access with the right to water or freedom of speech is dangerous. People all over the world do not have adequate access to water, education and in many European countries freedom of religion is currently under attack. Access to the internet should never take precedence over a right as vital to human survival as that of water, shelter or food. It should also never take precedence over the rights to education or the freedoms we have come to enjoy in Western Democracies, most notably of speech, religion and to assemble.
Similarly, what are the legal consequences of a lack of internet access? If I live in Utsjoki, Finland will I still be guaranteed access to a broadband connection? The costs associated with providing this access to all the people of Finland is going to be astronomical.
No one can foresee the future to a certainty. But, it seems clear that the internet has revolutionized the way humans conduct their lives. In the future, we will have to strive for the goal of having universal internet access.
To declare broadband internet access as a human right today is objectionable solely due to the costs and the perception that this access is tantamount to any other right.
Loading ...