I agree. I think we’d understand each other much better if we understood each other’s definition’s of “right” - we are asking, “Should the govt consider this a right?” But when we say “right”, are we talking about things the govt is supposed to give to us for “free” (paid for by taxes, like public education), or at least make sure we have some kind of access to but we still have to pay for it directly, or just stop other people from taking it away from us if we already have it, like property?
We know the internet is necessary for a lot of people (in this country), because it’s how they make a living, get educated, have a voice in the media, stay informed about things, all these things that we knew were necessary, and we considered them rights, before we had the Internet, and now in a lot of situations, for a lot of people, the Internet is a major way for them to have access to those basic rights.
So even people don’t think it’s a human right the way water or sanitation are human rights, or they think it’s just an “enabler of rights”, it’s deeply connected to all these issues regarding other basic rights we have as US citizens. And that means that the govt at least has to understand it, and think about what it means to be poor without Internet, or a student without Internet, and to be excluded from all these things in a time and place where everyone around you has access to them.
[1]: http://boingboing.net/2015/06/22/john-oliver-on-internet-misogy.html
