Access to Internet as a Human Right – Justification and Comparative Study

This paper advances a human rights perspective to the understanding of internet access by viewing it through a comparative lens with reference to countries in Europe, and the USA, India, and China. The question that is explored is: does internet access warrant recognition as a stand-alone human right, or is it sufficient that access is so bound up with one or more existing rights that formal recognition is unnecessary? Through this paper an effort has been made to analyse whether having a right to internet access as a human right is possible and to argue for the need to recognise such a right given the importance such a right holds, as can be seen especially during the ongoing pandemic when every aspect of life has been shifted to the online mode

Is Internet access a human right? Linking information and communication technology (ICT) development with global human rights efforts

Peer-reviewed journal article; preprint.The wave of uprisings and protests in Arab nations since late 2010, in part attributed to the use of social media and Internet access, has demonstrated the immense potential of information and communication technologies (ICTs) channeled for democracy. This paper argues that universal access to the global Internet is essential for the preservation of democracy and human rights and places the recent United Nations declaration that Internet access is a human right in the context of ongoing debates about the right to communicate, clarifying the distinction between universal service and the right to communicate. In particular, access to online content, required infrastructure, and ICTs is addressed, underscoring “the unique and transformative nature of the Internet not only to enable individuals to exercise their right to freedom of opinion and expression, but also a range of other human rights, and to promote the progress of society as a whole” (United Nations Human Rights Council, 2011, p.1). A basic right to communicate should also include access to developments such as the World Wide Web and emerging social media, as these are increasingly enabling active citizen participation (Winter & Wedemeyer, 2009). Envisioning participatory policy as grass-roots engagement, I address claims that modern ICTs can be employed to create public spaces for discourse and a reinvigoration of democratic processes (e.g., the Internet as a platform for the “public sphere” as imagined by Habermas, 1991) and emphasize the need to link ICT development with human rights efforts worldwide

The Right of Access to Information Through the Internet: the Comparison of “Hard law” and “Soft law”

The internet has become a necessary tool for the development of people’s lives. It is impossible to imagine a life without the internet since the vast majority of human beings use it in almost all of their daily activities. However, it is controlled by many government authorities around the world. This achievement of mankind, the world wide web, must not be arbitrarily deprived by the ruling authorities of any state. The question that this paper addresses is how the right of access to information through the internet is protected and restricted through international human rights instruments. Particularly, it identifies that “soft law” human rights instruments provide an access to information through the internet as an individual’s claim-right, whereas “hard law” provides it as a freedom. The method of the comparison of “hard law” and “soft law” instruments make it possible to understand that the human right is still better protected by a “soft” tool. The first part of this paper will compare the degree of protection provided by “hard law” and “soft law” instruments on the right of access to information through the internet. The second part of this paper will identify to what extent the “hard law” and “soft law” instruments justify the restrictions applied on the right of access to information through the internet

Promoting global Internet freedom: policy and technology

This report provides information about US government and private sector efforts to promote and support global Internet freedom and a description of Internet freedom legislation and hearings from the 112th Congress. Modern communication tools such as the Internet provide a relatively inexpensive, accessible, easy-entry means of sharing ideas, information, and pictures around the world. In a political and human rights context, in closed societies when the more established, formal news media is denied access to or does not report on specified news events, the Internet has become an alternative source of media, and sometimes a means to organize politically. The openness and the freedom of expression allowed through social networking sites, as well as the blogs, video sharing sites, and other tools of today’s communications technology, have proven to be an unprecedented and often disruptive force in some closed societies. Governments that seek to maintain their authority and control the ideas and information their citizens receive are often caught in a dilemma: they feel that they need access to the Internet to participate in commerce in the global market and for economic growth and technological development, but fear that allowing open access to the Internet potentially weakens their control over their citizens. Internet freedom can be promoted in two ways, through legislation that mandates or prohibits certain activities, or through industry self regulation. Current legislation under consideration by Congress, the Global Online Freedom Act of 2011 (H.R. 3605), would prohibit or require reporting of the sale of Internet technologies and provision of Internet services to “Internetrestricting countries” (as determined by the State Department). Some believe, however, that technology can offer a complementary and, in some cases, better and more easily implemented solution to ensuring Internet freedom. They argue that hardware and Internet services, in and of themselves, are neutral elements of the Internet; it is how they are implemented by various countries that is repressive. Also, Internet services are often tailored for deployment to specific countries; however, such tailoring is done to bring the company in line with the laws of that country, not with the intention of allowing the country to repress and censor its citizenry. In many cases, that tailoring would not raise many questions about free speech and political repression. This report provides information about federal and private sector efforts to promote and support global Internet freedom and a description of Internet freedom legislation and hearings from the 112th Congress. Three appendixes suggest further reading on this topic and describe censorship and circumvention technologies

Legal incapacitation in media access interdictions and the internet

In this paper I first situate the general norm in the Council of Europe countries on access to the internet by actors in the media in the context of key concerns related to the internet as a medium according to UNESCO’s Internet Study. Following on I provide analysis of media access to public events and places within the scope for protection according to recent sources from the Council of Europe’s political decision-making organs and the case-law of Human Rights Court. Further I delineate the scope for protection to digital free expression by a comparison of cases in the Netherlands on the internet as a means of access vis-à-vis a means of publication on social media and blogs. On this theme I focus on the particular motivations for protection of a wide-range of behavior related to the internet and specifics thereof in the parliamentary history of the Dutch law. Suggested by their wording, these political and judicial decisions limit the European Court’s general invocation of journalisms ethics when such is related to certain ‘ increased protections ’ to journalists. Some cases have - as instances of decisional law - given journalists/press the ‘ benefit of the doubt ’. I delineate how the Court has found the rights to seek, impart and receive up until recently, as well related to internet. Article 10 ECHR and other sources (eg. the Declarations and Recommendations of the decision-making organs of the Council of Europe) provide a scope for protection. We’re reminded that not only Article 10 defines what comes to the scope for protection, but also rights to observe protests (article 11 ECHR), eg. The case-law of the Netherlands has suggested that privacy intrusions are the most upcoming issue of media access in the field of communications and the internet. Injunctive relief with targeted, specifics for execution has be offered for certain heightened privacy protection. General laws on informational acts, such as beleaguering on the internet shouldn’t lead to denying a person of means of communication if no alternative, similar means are available. I related the analysis finally to the question why we should define professionalism as an ongoing and timely issue. The definition attempted by the Court / Council of Europe according to different sources of international standards has been related to the concept of ‘responsible journalism’, but the European Court can be seen to use a too simple view of what sources constitute its test(s) in a case

International Law and the Right to Global Internet Access: Exploring Internet Access as a Human Right Through the Lens of Iran’s Women-Life-Freedom Movement

The speed of digital transformation creates major challenges for understanding and protecting digital technology-based human rights. While the internet may once have been a nice-to-have amenity, as societies become increasingly dependent on digital infrastructure, it has become a prerequisite to access fundamental human rights. Because the protection of internet access as a human right is lacking, individuals remain vulnerable to abuses, particularly by autocratic leaders. This Essay uses the still-unfolding Iranian Women-Life-Freedom Movement to examine the consequences of internet deprivation. The Iranian regime’s brutal treatment of its citizens sparked widespread protests which were largely coordinated through social media, highlighting the critical role of the internet in facilitating freedom of expression and assembly. In response to growing dissent, the Iranian regime intensified its internet censorship, including filtering and shutdowns, effectively silencing its citizens. By analyzing the situation in Iran, this Essay reveals how internet censorship undermines a wide range of human rights enshrined in the U.N.’s Charter, treaties, and declarations with a specific emphasis on nondiscrimination, right to development, and freedom of speech and information. This Essay also argues that, in light of the clear and widespread deprivation suffered by Iranian citizens as a consequence of the Iranian regime’s internet tampering, internet access has become so essential to enjoying a broad array of basic human rights that intentional deprivation of the same can be considered a Crime Against Humanity under the terms of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Finally, it lays the foundations of such a case, which could benefit human rights globally

Conceptualising the digital divide

The term “digital divide” emerged in the 1990s to define inequalities in access to the Information Communication Technologies (ICTs), framing it as a matter of having or not having access to ICTs (Compaine 2001). The firsts empirical researches have shown how some specific socio-demographic variables, such as employment status, income, education level, geographic location, ethnicity, age, gender and family structure, influenced the access to the ICTs, creating a digital gap or divide among citizens (domestic digital divide) or countries (global digital divide). Such inequalities have widened during the years, despite the fact that the World Summit on the Information Society, held in Geneva (2003) and then in Tunis (2005) has stressed the idea that no one should be left out from the benefits offered by the information society. The importance of the Internet as a pre-requisite for economic and social development, has been further stressed by the United Nations in 2015 when the Internet has been included among its goals for resolving the most persistent social and economic challenges of our time (UN, 2015: 15). Indeed, in a digital enabled society, part of the human activities depends on how we access, generate and process information. It is then worth asking how the phenomenon of digital divide and digital inequalities has been approached and analysed by both scholars and policy makers and how such approach has changed over the years. Hence, the aim of this chapter is to discuss the change of perspectives in analysing and attempting to bridge the digital divide, and reconceptualise this concept by offering a nuanced theoretical approach to analyses the rise and persistence of digital inequalities