Slashdot Mirror
Petition Calls For Making Net Access Inalienable Right
CelticWhisper writes "Targeted at stopping SOPA, a petition has been started at the White House's 'We The People' page calling for a Constitutional amendment that would render internet access an inalienable right. Other countries have already adopted such classification for internet access. An excerpt from petition text reads: 'The United States Government is actively attempting to pass legislation to censor Internet. There are numerous campaigns against this Act, but we need to do more than just prevent SOPA from passing. Otherwise, future Acts of similar nature will oppress our rights.' Is calling for a Constitutional amendment to guarantee this too extreme, or is the Internet sufficiently entrenched in modern life that access to it should be guaranteed by the Constitution?"
By signing this petition, you are demanding the Obama Administration to add an amendment to the Constitution that limits the power of the Government from being able to censor the Internet.
Even if someone somehow got the impression that the Obama administration did not fully support the pro-copyright laws mentioned in the petition, the president cannot simply "add an amendment" to the constitution. The process by which amendments are added to the constitution is specified in Article V. Here it is so you don't have to bother looking it up:
Note that the president has no official role in the process.
Secondly: sorry folks, Obama is not your guy in this one, even if he could amend the constitution. Frankly, I'd very surprised to see anti-corporate-copyright opinion taken seriously by any presidential administration in my lifetime. You don't get to be in that position by making an enemy of Big Media.
I would also add the Freedom of Assembly with text chatting and video/voice conferences being the most obvious examples.
Freedom of speech does not necessarily extend to the methods used for speech. Freedom of speech does not give you an inalienable right to stand in public area speaking my mind into a 200dB sound system. Freedom of speech does not give you the right to call every number in the phone book at 2am. Hell, there's already significant precedent giving the government the right to revoke a citizens right to use a telephone. I'm not saying that the right to internet access shouldn't be be granted, but it is 100% not covered under existing precedent and interpretation of the first amendment.
Of course, this is meaningless with a Constitution that is not just routinely ignored, but at this point completely dead. Although the Constitution has been dying for the past century, the watershed moment for me came last month when a U.S. judge nullified the War Powers Act and put the capacity for declaration of war completely in the Executive Branch. Worse than the actual court decision, is that no one noticed or cared.
Except, per your reference, the judge did none of that. He simply stated the lawmakers bringing suit had no standing to do so; they did it as private citizens. The case was not a test of Constitutional powers (which would go to the supremes) but yet another simple case of individuals using the courts to further their agenda.
While the question of what rights does the President have to send troops, in his role of CiC and as a furtherance of his diplomatic powers, and what powers does Congress have to limit such actions is interesting; this was not a test case for that.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
It is already a right. The government does not GRANT rights, they can only take them away. "Quality of life".. Seriously?? Where did you read that? Contrary to popular belief, the government is charged with promoting the common good. Not providing it.
Nope. The constitution doesn't say much directly about your rights. It says what the government can and can not do. An example would be "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." While it does indicate the people have a right, the purpose is to limit what the government can do. AFAIK it is impossible for a citizen or business to violate the constitution - that's why bars can have "ladies night" and not be charges with discrimination. Your right to discriminate is not spelled out in the constitution, only the governments requirement NOT to discriminate.
IMHO the internet should not be mentioned explicitly. At most, the first amendment might be extended to include electronic communications. Plain and simple language is important, and specifics should be avoided. In fact, speech and things should not be taken as literal "speaking", but communication - in that case, the internet is already covered.
The Second Amendment is not a right to a gun or a right to own a gun. It prevents one's right to bear an arm being infringed. The Second Amendment doesn't give the right, but rather assumes the right exists and denies the government the right to remove it.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
The natural right/positive right debate has been going hard and heavy for three hundred years now, and while the founders had a diversity of opinions on the issue, they had the good sense to keep ideology out of the constitution. The first amendment is a proscription on the power of congress to make certain kinds of laws, nothing more or less. You can believe that you have a natural right or the right is granted, neither interpretation conflicts with the text of the constitution and both theories had adherents among the writers. Getting them to all agree on one theoretical interpretation or the other would have guaranteed the language of the amendment would never have passed.
Either way as pertains to privacy, it's most parsimonious to say US constitution does neither "recognize" nor "respect" a simple, holistic right to privacy. That the fourth amendment manages to spell out what it means without using the word "privacy" should be instructive, they probably left it out for a reason.
You can ask Hamilton, Washington and Adams about how they felt about the interpretation and limitations of enumerated powers.
Their real problem is that their theory of constitutional interpretation is based on idea that their understanding what James Madison "meant" when he wrote something down in 1782 is superior and more valid than how a modern, reasonable person interprets the plain language in the time they're actually living in. Scalia has been very specific about the fact that he "doesn't understand" modern culture enough to apply 18th-century constitutional rights to modern situations in the manner of a "living document" constitutionalist, but he's quite certain he understands the culture of the late Georgian period enough to come to all kinds of precise conclusions about things like eminent domain in Kelo or corporate personhood.
"Strict construction" is about embedding the terms and significations of the constitution in an historical-revisionist mythology and hermeneutic, with the objective of re-defining the law in minarchist terms (and guess who makes all the money when that happens).
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
The word "internet" does not appear even once in the US Constitution. ... As such Congress is perfectly able legislate restrictions on internet use
Ahem... wrong!
Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
If it's not in the Constitution, Congress cannot make any laws about it. AFAIK, that's why abortion is legal in the USA, because it's not mentioned in the Constitution.