Is the Internet a right or a privilege?

[Rcourt64]

Once again state legislature is attempting to make a bad thing look like a good helping one.
New Jersey has spoken:
12/13/2007 Passed by the Assembly (77-0-0)
12/17/2007 Received in the Senate, 2nd Reading on Concurrence
12/17/2007 Passed Senate (Passed Both Houses) (38-0)
12/27/2007 Approved P.L.2007, c.219.

Now don't get me wrong here, I'm not here attempting to defending or standing up to sex offenders. But these tactic are stupid attempts of control.
This is beginning to sound like getting on-line will be a privilege and possibly no longer a free right. (Like Driving) It's amazing people here still fall for the driving is a privilege not a necessity bullshit concept.

Story by Nate Anderson HERE

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by Rcourt64

Once again state legislature is attempting to make a bad thing look like a good helping one.
New Jersey has spoken:
12/13/2007 Passed by the Assembly (77-0-0)
12/17/2007 Received in the Senate, 2nd Reading on Concurrence
12/17/2007 Passed Senate (Passed Both Houses) (38-0)
12/27/2007 Approved P.L.2007, c.219.

Now don't get me wrong here, I'm not here attempting to defending or standing up to sex offenders. But these tactic are stupid attempts of control.
This is beginning to sound like getting on-line will be a privilege and possibly no longer a free right. (Like Driving) It's amazing people here still fall for the driving is a privilege not a necessity bullshit concept.

Story by Nate Anderson HERE

I agree.....and the basis in law I think you are looking for, is,

Freedom of movement, mobility rights or the right to travel is a human rights concept which is respected in the constitutions of numerous states. It asserts that a citizen of a state, in which that citizen is present, generally has the right to leave that state, travel wherever the citizen is welcome, and, with proper documentation, return to that state at any time; and also (of equal or greater importance) to travel to, reside in, and/or work in, any part of the state the citizen wishes without interference from the state.

Indeed, this is part of the 14th amendment,


The U.S. Supreme Court also dealt with the right to travel in the case of Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999). In that case, Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, held that the United States Constitution protected three separate aspects of the right to travel among the states: the right to enter one state and leave another, the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than a hostile stranger (protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause in Article IV, § 2), and for those who become permanent residents of a state, the right to be treated equally to native born citizens (this is protected by the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause).




The right to travel is a part of the 'liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. If that "liberty" is to be regulated, it must be pursuant to the law-making functions of the Congress. . . . . Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, . . . may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values.


damnit!

[MikeSouth]

Sorry guys driving is NOT a right it IS a priviledge one granted by the state by virtue of a drivers license, which can be REVOKED

the right to movement does not either implicity or explicitly apply to driving only to come and go as you please, so to speak.

By the same token the internet is closer to a right but still isn't one, simply put it isnt free, you must or someone must pay for you to use it. While there are no drivers licenses for the internet Im not so sure it wouldnt be a bad idea (LOL JK)

It could be argued that there IS a right to PURCHASE internet connectivity but in no way is the internet a right.

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by MikeSouth

Sorry guys driving is NOT a right it IS a priviledge one granted by the state by virtue of a drivers license, which can be REVOKED

the right to movement does not either implicity or explicitly apply to driving only to come and go as you please, so to speak.
.

I'm afraid I must respectfully disagree with you.
"travel freely by the ordinary conveyance of the day" (at the time, referring to the new "iron horse" if I recall correctly) I belive was the decision, somewhere.....

[MikeSouth]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

I'm afraid I must respectfully disagree with you.
"travel freely by the ordinary conveyance of the day" (at the time, referring to the new "iron horse" if I recall correctly) I belive was the decision, somewhere.....

Disagree all you like but it don't change the facts...driving on public roadways is a privilege not a right

I know of no guaranteed right that requires you to be A) schooled in, and successfully pass physical and written tests for.

I also know of no guaranteed right that you can C) be fined for

Its a privilege you must pass a test, pay for a license and have insurance or that privilege is not granted were it a right that wouldnt be the case

[Rcourt64]

Originally Posted by MikeSouth

Disagree all you like but it don't change the facts...driving on public roadways is a privilege not a right

I know of no guaranteed right that requires you to be A) schooled in, and successfully pass physical and written tests for.

I also know of no guaranteed right that you can C) be fined for

Its a privilege you must pass a test, pay for a license and have insurance or that privilege is not granted were it a right that wouldnt be the case

The debate here is not whether it's legal or not? The United States Rules are "The Rules". I won't argue that.
But you're reply Mr.South falls along the category of: "Ohh Well..., That's just the way it is, buddy"
...and that doesn't make it correct? now does it?
Where do legal standards decide which is what??? Where is the line drawn between whats a privilege and a necessity in todays Generation of necessity for survival???
"These here be my dumb American observations now..."

...
In todays societies & lifestyles, The Internet is and will become a "necessity" & "need" in every Americans daily work and functioned routine. "Just Like Driving"
And if this is the course a percentage of the United States will recur to be able to keep people off line?
Then I see allot Of Internet DUI's and "Driving while Licenses Revoked" occurring thought out this Great Internet Nation.

And what fucking kinda U.S. tax funding is gonna support this Bullshit again? ............

Anyone care to enlighten where this funding will be coming from???

I'll GIVE YA ONE GUESS?

[EmporerEJ]

And if one, was, say, a member of the bar.......

Wouldn't he HAVE to agree with, and defend the law? Yes, I'm sure I read that somewhere.....

Until someone with courage, and perseverance defends the constitution as it was originally written, we will all be faced with these "rules."

[Rcourt64]

Wait a minute here..??? if they wanna take control of the Internet and tell us who can or can't be on-line?
Then why not also obscene sex phone perverts???? Maybe they shouldn't allow these sort of pervs to use any sort of phone communication? right?
No cell phones, No public phones, No home land lines.

This is all they get

Cuz America is looking out for YOUR best interests
Right?

[MikeSouth]

Technically it may depend on how you define a "right"

legally speaking rights are not tangible things you have a right to bear arms for instance but that doesnt mean that you have the right to expect taxpayers to provide you with a gun

by the same token you may well argue that you have a right to purchase internet connectivity and I wouldnt disagree with you but you have no right legally or otherwise to force the government to give you internet service at the expense of taxpayers any more than they should be required to provide you with a gun.

rights are something you exercize not something that someone gives you.

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by MikeSouth

rights are something you exercize not something that someone gives you.

especially the unalienable ones......

[Rcourt64]

Originally Posted by MikeSouth

Technically it may depend on how you define a "right"

legally speaking rights are not tangible things you have a right to bear arms for instance but that doesnt mean that you have the right to expect taxpayers to provide you with a gun

by the same token you may well argue that you have a right to purchase internet connectivity and I wouldnt disagree with you but you have no right legally or otherwise to force the government to give you internet service at the expense of taxpayers any more than they should be required to provide you with a gun.

rights are something you exercize not something that someone gives you.

ok, So how are my rights to purchase Internet decide on or taken away or even charged to retain and keep??? they're suppose to be free?
..my rights I mean. not the Internet or the gun or the drivers license.
In a society when exercising my rights has become a necessity of survival to be able to cope with todays advanced technologies and lifestyles, and keeping a roof over my head? and the kids in school? ......hmmm. should I continue...
But to be able to exercise my free rights, I need to seek permission first. and that's wrong.

[Rcourt64]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

especially the unalienable ones......

If they can take it away from you, or charge you for it, then it wasn't yours to begin with.

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by MikeSouth

Technically it may depend on how you define a "right"

legally speaking rights are not tangible things you have a right to bear arms for instance but that doesnt mean that you have the right to expect taxpayers to provide you with a gun

by the same token you may well argue that you have a right to purchase internet connectivity and I wouldnt disagree with you but you have no right legally or otherwise to force the government to give you internet service at the expense of taxpayers any more than they should be required to provide you with a gun.

rights are something you exercize not something that someone gives you.

Since we are slicing and dicing this issue, I take some exception with you on the "force the government to give you internet service at the expense of taxpayers" statement.


There is a tiny flicker of an argument for this statement. The "internet" or Darpanet/Arpanet was originally created with taxpayer's money, and so "belongs to the people."
It is still "controlled" to a degree by the government through various rules, regulations, sponsorships etc.
So, at it's core, it DOES belong "to the people." And to an extent, they ARE entitled to it, or at least, equal access. (And now we start the tier argument)

[ali25extreme]

Get a nanny cam on them....help the employment of others..and have the offenders pay for that privilege to earn their rights back!!!

[Donfoolio]

Right Vs Privilege has become distorted by exponential growth of the human race and the fact that natural selection plays no part in our lives. The weak run the human world and it is topsy turvy compared to nature. As a living thing we all have the right to do whatever we want, if it hurts someone then they have the right to retaliate. If they can't they would be deemed weak and unfit by nature, but in our system that does not apply, so we need to take rights away and make them privileges which in my opinion is a far worse crime against nature.

Anyone who feels that it is good to take away rights and make them privileges so they can live safely and comfortably is a coward and is an enemy of humanity plain and simple. So to put it shortly I believe the internet is not only a MUST in this day and age of mental tyranny it is a NATURAL RIGHT just like taking a piss is!