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?"
it's called Free Speech. That's not to say that the Government won't try to take it away, as they have with other rights, but there it is. The Internet isn't a thing which can be (properly) regulated, it's just a bunch of people/organizations voluntarily communicating.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
You can't have an inalienable right to someone else's property.
(Posting AC from work)
Show me a Canadian version of it and I'll sign! Imagine a world in which people would be banned from having access to a telephone. Seems pretty insane, right? Well, the internet is now in the same realm as phone access - it is a vital means of communication. Banning access to it is unacceptable. Sign it.
No more rights!!! This is a dangerous precedent!!! We already have the right to internet access, don't you people understand???? We have the right to EVERYTHING that is not illegal. The only power the govt has is to REMOVE certain rights (which i agree with). If we run down this road of "We, the GOVERNMENT" did not "grant" the right to internet access, the whole thing falls down. Things like this scare the shit out of me. Every single law that is passed has one thing in common, it limits your rights (which, again, is a good thing, felons with guns, etc..).
how do you tell your robot helicopter which truck to land on if you don't have access to the internet?
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
It is an inalienable right.
Consider what would be like if someone attempted to pass a law that says people should not talk with loud voices in public spaces. Or, people should not talk in groups bigger than 2. that would basically totally neutralize your right to free speech as you used it through your own, inalienable voice. it would basically alienate your right to speak, with your inalienable throat. this would totally end free speech back in ages where there wasnt technology like newspapers, tv, internet.
Or, consider a law that banned anyone from printing and publishing anything without consent from king's council. that would basically end free speech circa 1774. no pamphlet, or newspaper would be published that king didnt allow. notice, how pamphlets, newspapers had had taken over your sole, single throat as the medium free speech was conducted back at that time.
Fast forward to today. This isnt no different. internet is the medium that free speech is conducted - but actually more - its the best avenue for free speech. you restrict it, and you restrict free speech. It has taken over throat, newspapers/print medium and tv as the vehicle of free speech. Notice that i skipped the radio and tv era. that is because there has never been free speech in that era, due to the license/financial requirements they had.
internet is now our throats. cutting people off from internet, is like cutting their throats so there wont be free speech.
Read radical news here
Does that mean the staff of your ISP has to be hauled into The Hague and charged with Crimes Against Humanity, for denying you of your "human rights"?
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
The EU have made the the right to use the internet a law in 2009.
-- Cheers!
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.
By making something like internet access an inalienable right, the government would be required to ensure every single person in the United States has not only access to an internet connection, but also a means of connection. The government would be required to buy people computers or smart phones. And, if a person lost, broke, or sold his computer, the government would be required to give him a new one because without a computer, he would not have inalienable right to internet access.
Also, the government would have to either pay for everyone to have internet access, provide some sort of subsidy for those who can't afford internet access, start it's own ISP which would end up directly competing with private companies, or nationalize all ISPs.
Then, there is the small fact that no one could be sentenced to not having internet access, regardless of the crime. Spammers, crackers, sexual predators, child molesters, child pornographers, and even generic criminals. And, being an "inalienable right", internet access would have to be available, on demand, to ever single prisoner in the United States, including email and instant messaging. Gangsters could use texts, email, and facebook to run their crews and order hits on witnesses. On-line grifters could run their scams from prison. Rapists could email and text their victims. Pedophile predators could stalk and groom new victims. And, being inalienable, the prisons would be unable to prevent them.
This is truly a case of not thinking things through. The unintended consequences and costs of this bill would greatly outweigh it's benefits.
And, these people want to make internet access an inalienable right, not food when we have people going hungry in this country? Really? Talk about fucked up priorities.
And, finally, need the internet to have free speech? First world problems.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
The Constitution is not primarily a delineator or guarantor of specific rights of citizens. It is, rather, a document that establishes comprehensive limitations on the power of government. The focus of the document is never on "what rights do people have," the focus is, instead, on "what are the defined and limited powers of government."
Note the first amendment. By its clear wording "Congress shall make no law....." the document makes moot the point of who shall benefit from this limitation, because the limitation is on Congress, not the people. It doesn't matter who or what is engaging in the free speech, the salient part, emphasized by the wording, is that Congress shall make no law that abridges that freedom. We don't have to spend a lot of time agonizing over the entity that is conducting the speech -- we can stop once we acknowledge that Congress isn't allowed to abridge it.
Furthermore, because "religion" and "the press" and "the people peaceably to assemble" are generally group activities, it is implicit in the amendment that Congresses limitations extend to group activities as well as individual activities.
Much, much harm has been done to our Constitution by people who say things like "There's no right to privacy in the Constitution," or "The Constitution doesn't give people the right to _____" -- as the ninth amendment makes explicit and as is implied in the language of the entire document "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
In other words, the operating principle of the Constitution is that people have ALL rights except in those limited areas where the government is specifically empowered by the Constitution to act.
The first question you should ask when you see a new law made is not "does this violate a right guaranteed in the Constitution" but "Does the Constitution anywhere empower the government to act in this matter."
Over and over again, you will find the answer is "No."
Censorship and mandates--maybe we get lucky and these kinds of idiotic proposals cancel each other out?
Unless you live within walking distance of your job/school, the vast majority of us need a car to get around. That's always been a 'privilege' in our society. Why should internet access be any different from that?
already covered by:
"""
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
"""
And if it's "they ignore that" then why do they think some new amendment wouldn't be ignored in exactly the same way?
This will mostly result in the supreme court ruling that "The Internet" is actually defined as
1) pdf.irs.gov (or pubs.irs.gov or whatever), army.mil, basically all federal level marketing websites.
2) maybe some mechanism to allow state and local government websites
3) some mechanism to allow "related" and "quisling" sites like the federal-reserve.com, and quisling sites like republican.com, democrat.com. Categorically exclude libertarian.com, etc.
4) Possibly religious websites, if they need the votes of the BBQ republicans to get it to pass (BBQ = biblethumpers, bigots, and quislings)
5) walled gardens like AOL exclusively permitted by donations to re-election campaigns of $1B annually or more
Everything else, including /.? Oh thats not legally "The Internet" anymore.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
The "inalienable right to health care" also is an "inalienable right to someone else's property", so there is ample precedent.
(Note that I think that basic health care should actually be provided to everybody, but that's cheap. The "right to health care" in US and European politics means universal access to expensive, state-of-the-art first world treatments, which is something entirely different.)
The petition states that its goal is to prevent the US government from censoring the Internet. That has nothing to do with the idea of making the Internet an unalienable right.
If you declare Internet access to be an unalienable right, you are inviting government intervention to provide everyone with an Internet connection. This is not great. If you want a preview of the consequences, just visit any inner-city emergency room and ask them how EMTALA is working out for them.
Meanwhile, you have done nothing at all to prevent censorship. "Look, you have an Internet connection - we are just filtering out all the bad, evil stuff for you."
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
First Amendment
The right to assemble applies to cyberspace, not just meatspace. Furthermore, the right to freedom of press is meaningless without the right to assemble to give the person your leaflet. Even though the document is over 200 years old, already it made first-class acknowledgement of technology: the printing press, a major technological leap from the fifteenth century. The Constitution is technology-aware. The Internet is the new press, and to prevent publication on it or to prevent receiving publications from it is unconsitutional.
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.
Congress trying to pass a law every other year to limit our access to electricity. Let me know when they start discussing the first bill, then I'll worry about it.
Let's get people food, clothing, shelter, clean water, medicines, power as their "inalienable rights" before getting something that is a convenience...
Congress trying to pass a law every other year to limit our access to electricity.
Sigh- that should read: Congress isn't trying to pass a law
...the property that my tax dollars subsidized, and the monopoly that I paid for.
You have a right to free speech. You have a right to communicate your ideas with others. You DO NOT have a right to any particular media of communication. Freedom of the press only applies to censorship, the government cannot prohibit you from publishing something. You cannot have an inalienable right to a technology.
People are misunderstanding the idea of "inalienable" here. Inalienable means that it is an inherent right, that you get simply be being human. Think of it as a "natural" right. In any nongovernmented state (as in state of being, not country)you have the right to say what you want, to do what you want, to have property, to tell other people your beliefs. Internet connections do not apply here.
Reposting this logged in.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
A right is something that you have, even if your the last person on earth.
right to free speech? yes, you can say whatever you want as the last place on earth.
right to religion? yup.. no one will tell you not to worship your wubby after they are all gone.
right to health care? who is going to provide it? not a right, after all, you have to take it from someone else to provide it for free.
right to a house a car, food, the internet? all of these are provided from someone else, if you live in a "free country" (and I realize we do not). an individual or company providing these has a right to be compensated as ludicrously as the market will support.
In closing, a right is something that cannot be taken away, except by force. not something that is provided by taking it by force from another.
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.
The only problem I see with treating internet access like a utility is that the constant changing of technology.
The technology to bring water to a house is roughly stagnant. Sure, there's new switches and gates, etc but overall, it's about pipes.
Electricity is a closer corollary but still has problems. It's relatively static (pun intended) and there isn't a lot of new technologies.
With the internet, you have coax and fiber. I'm sure someone is working on something even faster. The technology isn't settled yet to make access a right. Not saying that it shouldn't be. Definitely agree it should be, but how this works out in practice will determine whether it will actually get passed.
We don't live in Shouldland.
For all the "original intent" types, it should be noted that the framers of the Constitution explicitly gives the federal government the power "to establish post offices and post roads." What does that have to do with the Internet? In the late 18th century when the Constitution was written, snail mail was the most advanced means of communication. The framers believed that the federal government should take a pro-active role in ensuring that everyone in the country had access to this communication infrastructure. There is no reason why the same underlying principle should not apply to telegraphs in the 19th century, phones in the 20th, or Internet access today. Clearly the intent of the framers was not to advocate one single method of communication, but to specify that the government of a free society should take the lead in providing state-of-the-art communication technology to the greatest extent possible.
While we're at it, let's make access to shelter, clean water, power, and food inalienable rights as well.
Not being flippant, I believe these things should be in any society that dares call itself "civilized."
Don't want to pony up to see that everyone is taken care of? Fine. Drop the pretense of being anything more than a barbaric child-culture.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
I'm living in one of those "other countries". Finland, to be specific.
And I think the legislators did the right thing. I just think that the expression "Right to Broadband" was a little bit grandiose considering what happened.
The law that gave us the "right to broadband" didn't give us any "inalienable rights". I think it would be absolutely absurd to call Internet access part of citizen's fundamental rights. Definitely a right, but not fundamental. I certainly wouldn't want the legislators to mess with the frigging Constitution to get us that.
Technology comes and goes. You don't want to guarantee the citizens to have an access to something that could be obsolete. If you try to make the legislation to stand the test of time, it will end up too vague to be put in the constitution. No, if you want to give people the right to use specific technologies, that calls for less grandiose and narrower laws.
Besides, you can't force people on the Internet, perhaps against their wishes, perhaps against the wishes of other people. ISPs still need to be able to tell the spammers to fuck off, for example. You can't turn that kind of very necessary exceptions into a broadly applicable part of the constitution, dammit.
So here's what the "right to broadband" actually entailed here: Telecom companies have to get off their asses and build the network to the specs of the day. They must ensure that all customers who want reasonably fast broadband Internet will get it at a reasonable price.
And why did they do this? A lot of services depend on the Internet. You need to be able to do banking and talk to the government bureaus and whatever -- a lot of that is in the Internet these days. On the less essential side we have internet shops - folks who live in the middle of the woods need to order their stuff online.
All this is here to highlight something: You need to ensure that people who need to get online will get online. Even if you're a repeated spam offender and can only use your Internet bank account in presence of an armed guard (a completely hypothetical scenario, yeah), but dammit, still, you can't take it away because that's what you sometimes have to do to get through the day.
But note that all of that is completely separate from freedom of speech. You have to campaign to get your right to access the internet. You don't need to campaign for your right to say pretty much whatever you want on the Internet because you already have that right. Unlike the right to get a reasonably priced Internet access, the right to free speech is something you can put in a constitution, and it bloody well already is there.
It's a product you pay for from a private company.
Incorrect. The Internet is public infrastructure, paid for by public money. Access to it is sold by private companies.
If 5% of their users are consuming 90% of their bandwidth...
Then their bandwidth is insufficient to meet consumer demand. That's a reason to UPGRADE their capabilities, not hamstring their customers. What kind of idiot economy do you live in?
Let the free market decide.
Good idea. Too bad that's the LAST thing businesses want.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
If it is an inalienable right then by definition you will find that you have to give internet access to prisoners, detained illegal immigrants, and at least the families of someone who decided to live in a shack half way up a mountain through their own choice.
A Constitutional amendment might be necessary. Just as the 4th Amendment clear definition of the right to privacy as "secure in their persons, homes, papers and effects" doesn't force the government to protect our privacy instead of invading it, the 1st Amendment doesn't force the government to protect our speech and press freedoms. (In fact it has never protected our religious freedoms, since it's been turned on its head making Congress respect establishments of religion in tax exemptions while requiring them to operate their establishments in ways exempted from free speech and press exemptions.) The Constitution that creates the only powers our government legitimately holds needs amendments clarifying our rights in modern language that lawyers don't find so easy to pervert.
One amendment would simply state that Congress shall protect the right to freedom of religion, making no law that includes distinctions on the basis of religion, and protects the rights to freedom of the press and of speech by making no law that infringes on them without due process. Another amendment would simply state that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, homes, papers and effects is the right to privacy. Might as well go the next step in stating that the right to keep and bear arms necessary to supplying a militia that defends a free state is protected from infringement by law. All these clarifications make the Constitution direct the government to actually protect our freedoms, rather than allow weasel words (and weasel lawyers) to get the government to abuse our freedoms.
We need another amendment that states that a person is only any individual human who can understand these rights. That eliminates the corporate "person", and even the related fetal "person" that some people have used get the government to increasingly deprive real people our rights. In fact, if we passed that amendment first, the others might not be necessary.
--
make install -not war
Like a lawyer?
We have the right to freely travel, even if not necessarily using any specific travel technology - which would limit that right to the modes specified. So roads in 1790, railroads in 1890, airplanes in 1990, and spaceliners in 2090. Internet in 2011, and "psychic friends network" or something in 2111.
It's true that the right to "Internet access" is not really the right in question. It's the right to free press (not exactly speech), that currently in the Constitution doesn't make clear that the people have the right to consume the press freely.
--
make install -not war
We do not have "[t]he right to assemble...to freedom of press..." etc.
We have a right from "law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble". There is a big difference.
We have rights from the government making laws prohibiting certain things because the Constitution assumes that rights are inherent to the people and the government puts in place laws to limit those rights as needed by civil society. The rights FROM certain laws exist to protect what the founding fathers saw as rights needed to keep the government in check. The clearest example of this is Amendment 10 "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".
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
You have the right to make a phone call.
"Let the free market decide" our rights is currently the most discredited argument for anything. The free market, as we can see everywhere it's not regulated to protect rights, merely abuses the rights of at least some people to exploit them. And you can tell a business what it can't do with its product: it can't sell recycled asbestos in baby food, for example.
--
make install -not war
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.
An Inalienable right is one which can only be taken away by the government, not given.
I'm not sure if I should be sad I had to scroll down this far to find someone who knows what "inalienable" means or happy that anyone at all bothered to post this after the uncritical, unreflective responses above.
One quibble about language: a right is a political condition necessary for the life of a morally autonomous being. A right can be violated--a condition can fail to be met--but it cannot be removed: for example freedom of speech will always be necessary for the life of a morally autonomous being. It is no more possible to take away the necessity of that condition than it is possible to take away the necessity of air. You can take away the air (or the freedom) but not the need for it.
I'll also say that I think humans are more than just rights-bearing beings, and any social theory that attempts to found itself solely on notions of rights is going to leave out a vast amount of really important stuff, which is why libertarians and tend to end up in such strange places, as they attempt to shoe-horn the entire rich panoply of humanity into the straightjacket of rights theory.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
On the one hand we have a society that is making it increasingly difficult for people to function normally (buy things, pay bills, find government information, etc.) without access to the Internet. On the other we have corporations that 1.) are trying to criminalize whatever we do on the Internet as much as they can in order to increase their profit margins, and 2.) have way too much money and influence on our governments, meaning that they will attempt endlessly to push their agendas until they succeed. A Constitutional amendment would be a good way to put a stop to their attempts once and for all.
Okay, so what about the really bad guys out their, distributing spam, viruses, kiddy-porn -- wouldn't they then also have an inalienable right to Internet access? Well, yes, but those people can also be fined and/or incarcerated.
Congress shall make no law prohibiting the access of any person to the internet.
This is the right way to think about it, as a form of negative reciprocity.
"The government may not prevent" rather than "the government shall give X to."
Those 'give X to' ideas (aka 'positive rights') are really dangerous because they necessarily involve taking from person A to give to person B. So, they violate one person's rights to give to another. Taken far enough, you wind up with government-controlled slavery. It's the same problem with the 'universal healthcare' laws.
Although, we never needed amendments for telegraphs, offset printers, telephones, FAX machines, etc., so this one is probably also unneeded. If only the Supreme Court hadn't surrendered to FDR in 1937.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
That's why we have the ninth ammendment. If SCOTUS isn't aware of it, we're beyond hope. Those who say there isn't a right to privacy, see the ninth. It doesn't get discussed as much as the others; but it's fundamental as you say. It's so fundamental that I thought it was in the Constitution. I vaguely rememembered the wording, and when I came up dry in there I went looking at the bills and sure enough there it was.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
"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."
So now Slashdot is promoting the political agendas of semi-literate cranks who lack even a basic understanding of how our government works?
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
What happens when SolarNet comes on line, or MilkyNet in the next 100 years, would we have to update the constitution again? Internet is a particular technology, it would be pretty lame to go through all the trouble to make an ammendment only to have it be replaced by something else about the time this actually goes into effect in 30 years.
Is Freedom of Speech the same as Freedom of Communication? If so, all we need is a court ruling or two, not a new amendment. If it is something different, then maybe a Freedom of Communication amendment should be added to the constitution.
What about the fact we access the internet through a private party? This company is not obligated to uphold any of the constitution (not that I am über-pro business). Access through a private company is like saying th 2nd amendment allows you to carry a firearm at a bank or bar, both being private property that generally does not allow private citizens to carry weapons there, but are not violating the right to bear arms.
They come in the dark, only in the darkest.
The constitution has no teeth.
Its clear that the US government (and therefore big business) feels entirely free to ignore the constitution whenever it suits them, so its not clear that extending constitutional protection to the internet will have any effect in actual practice.
So the proposed solution to combating the government's attempts to censor the internet is ... pass an constitutional amendment which gives the government more control over the internet.
Um, ok.
Everyone is ignoring the 900 pound gorilla in the corner. The internet is a virtual space, not a real one. There is no space-time continuum that the internet consists of. It is actually a conglomeration of mostly private pieces. Not only is it mostly private, the owners of those private pieces are large corporate entities that it relies upon to exist. There would be no ubiquitous internet in the hands of most humans were it not for the complex organizations that are able to implement it. In the current state the internet cannot be a fundamental and basic aspect of human life without giving up some level of freedom.
Either we keep the internet private and don't expect any special rights, or we move toward an ever more distributed and open internet that can be fully built up with DIY open source systems, and requires no top-down control by ICANN, backbone providers, and end-loop ISPs.
LS
There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
Just because 10% of people on the internet are trading warez or pirated movies and music doesn't give them the right to infringe upon my rights to freely travel the internet.
Actually absent any specific law or judicial interpretation specifically disallowing such behavior they can do EXACTLY that. The word "internet" does not appear even once in the US Constitution. Much like the word "privacy" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution - it is inferred from various amendments. As such Congress is perfectly able legislate restrictions on internet use and the judiciary is perfectly able to interpret existing laws in ways contrary to your convenience and security. You have no explicit "right to freely travel the internet". Whether you should have such an explicit right is another matter but it doesn't exist now.
Whether or not freedom of speech covers the internet is up to the courts to decide, not congress. And since they've already determined that writing is a form of speech I don't see how writing "on the internet" would be any different.
I don't care how that sentence ends -- it's guaranteed to be utterly stupid.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
While I'm profoundly opposed to internet regulation via SOPA (and via so-called "net neutrality" as well, which actually means "net regulation" except that it is regulated in a way some people find favorable), this proposal is a particularly poor idea.
As some others have pointed out, the US Constitution is not a place to enumerate people's rights - people have rights regardless of the Constitution. The Constitution exists to limit the government's rights. As soon as you start enumerating people's rights in that fine document, you've turned it on its head (and will open a line of attack on other, unenumerated, rights). Really, the onus should be on the government to prove it is acting within the limited confines of the Constitution, rather than the people having to prove it is not (with mixed results).
It is astonishing to me that a great many people think they only have rights because the government has deigned to give them those rights. That is not the case.
I have the right to "speak" to whoever I wish, provided myself and the person I am speaking to wishes to have that conversation. Whether it is me talking to someone at a bar, or me "speaking" to another "person" across the world by visiting their website, it is the same principle.
Banning websites is no different than banning books. I think we can all agree that there is no evil great enough to allow them to start banning books all Nazi-like, or at least, the inherent evil in banning books far outweighs the dangers of what could be contained in them warranting such a drastic action.
The internet is a means of communication. By limiting who we can "talk" to on the internet, they are limiting our First Amendment rights. I can go to any damned website I want; if I am breaking the law through my actions on said site, that is one thing, but I have every fucking right to pull up The Pirate Bay if I want to. Until I start downloading those torrents I have done nothing wrong.
They don't have to give me free access to the internet. They just have to get their dirty fingers out of where I'm going when I'm connected to it. That's my business, not theirs. Until I have given them reason to suspect that I have committed a crime, I am protected in going there. The burden is on them to determine if I have committed a crime, they're not allowed to assume I have just because I was there. There is no law against keeping unsavory company. It is completely contrary to the spirit of our Constitution, regardless of whether or not the word "Internet" appears therein.
Actually not "the internet" but unfiltered internet ACCESS is what is should become a inalienable right.
The problem you have is you need to clearly define what you mean by "access". What services does that cover? What technologies? For what uses and what purposes? Are there minimum service levels? The concept of internet access is a pretty broad topic and there needs to be at least the potential for a pretty serious problem before we go modifying the Constitution. It's not clear that there is such a problem at this time.
The Constitution is the "supreme law of the land" in its own words, and is intended to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves" -- i.e. individuals. That individuals "don't have standing" to bring Constitutional issues to the courts is an idea popularized recently by the birther lawsuits, but individual standing wasn't an issue until 1922 -- within the "Constitution dying over the past century" that I mentioned.
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.
You seem to have a problem distinguishing between a transfer of property (purchase) and limited use of someone else's property. They are not the same. Ever. As for your specific examples:
A bullhorn is a physical object which is purchased. Except for design elements, which may be patented, etc, the maker has transferred the thing to you when you purchased it. It is yours. Do what you want with it.
A book publisher (actually, copyright law) can and does indeed tell you how you may read the book - you may not read it in a public performance, you may not make audio books of a reading, you can not create a script from it etc.
A restaurant has zero responsibility to provide meals to anyone. The only thing they may not do is refuse service based solely on some very limited criteria - race, color, religion, etc (things that a person can not or can not be expected to change). They can refuse service because you don't have a reservation, aren't dressed appropriately, are drunk and bothering other patrons, skipped out without paying last time, or damn near any other reason.
If you are going to make analogies, at least use comparable ones. Can a landlord restrict how many people live in an apartment (yes). Can a landlord say 'no commercial use of the space' (yes). Can an car leasing company limit the number of miles driven (yes). Can a newspaper decide who gets published and who doesn't (yes).
Your reference for the Second Amendment takes a non-restrictive clause and turns it into a restrictive clause emphasized with italics. Reason?
The Constitution is the "supreme law of the land" in its own words, and is intended to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves" -- i.e. individuals. That individuals "don't have standing" to bring Constitutional issues to the courts is an idea popularized recently by the birther lawsuits, but individual standing wasn't an issue until 1922 -- within the "Constitution dying over the past century" that I mentioned.
Actually, the court has wrestled with this issue long before that. However, it makes perfect constitutional sense to argue that unless the person(s) suing have suffered an injury or loss directly attributable to the actions of the state then they have no standing to sue. To do otherwise gives the court the power to legislate form the bench by deciding policy issues; something left to the Executive and legislative branches. Hence, the concept of standing, as it has evolved, is not a weakening of the Constitution but completely inline with its requirements.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
If it's not in the Constitution, Congress cannot make any laws about it.
There are many things not explicitly in the Constitution that have been interpreted in such a way that Congress can and has made laws about them. Much of the Internet almost without question falls under the Commerce Clause and many aspects of the internet are therefore subject to federal regulation. And we haven't even gotten into the ability of the States themselves to regulate the internet or how the courts will interpret the Constitution.
AFAIK, that's why abortion is legal in the USA, because it's not mentioned in the Constitution.
You've got that mostly right but you left out a key part. It's legal because the Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution in such a manner that to date has prohibited Congress from passing such laws. The Supreme Court could theoretically change its mind in a future ruling and make it illegal. Remember that the Supreme Court upheld Jim Crow laws for the better part of a century. The Constitution for better or worse is very subject to interpretation.
15 years ago it probably crossed the mind of phone users that a telephone land line should be an inalienable right. Right now, that would seem kind of silly, and another 15 years from now people would be scratching their heads wondering why anyone would have ever made that a law in the first place. So consider how young the Internet is as a specific technology that enables communication, and ask yourself if this proposal really makes any sense or not.
I have the right to "speak" to whoever I wish, provided myself and the person I am speaking to wishes to have that conversation
Agreed and the First Amendment covers that.
I can go to any damned website I want; if I am breaking the law through my actions on said site, that is one thing, but I have every fucking right to pull up The Pirate Bay if I want to. Until I start downloading those torrents I have done nothing wrong.
And that is covered by the Fourth Amendment. Do you have a point to make or were you just ranting? The internet is just a specific case of things that we already deal with. Some new laws will be needed to clarify some of the corner cases here and there and I'm sure the Commerce Clause will come into play from time to time. Be patient and let things work themselves out. There is no obvious need for a new amendment to the Constitution for the internet.
Whether or not freedom of speech covers the internet is up to the courts to decide, not congress. And since they've already determined that writing is a form of speech I don't see how writing "on the internet" would be any different.
It likely isn't any different. We just have relatively little case law backing that up compared to case law for printed speech.
Nevertheless, Congress IS able to pass laws regarding internet access (whatever you mean by "access") and until such time as the courts interpret them they carry the force of law. And it is quite possible the courts will support whatever Congress decides.
Inalienable right = something you are entitled to that a governing entity can't give. The US Constitution's inalienable rights were "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," the rest of the rights in the Bill of Rights were added on because James Madison (I think?) knew that if they didn't add the BoR, that Congress would eventually try to limit those things. Jefferson wrote where the concept of inalienable rights came from... mainly the old idea of "natural law," that there are certain things you are entitled to simply by being born into this world. You should always be able to do what you want and pursue the life that you want as long as it doesn't infringe upon others' rights to do so. That's why you can't have a "right" to a house, medical care, food, or a car, because someone else would have to supply those things for you, thereby infringing upon their freedoms.
Short version, you can't grant someone an inalienable right, especially when that right is only in existence because of privately held and owned infrastructure.
PS: I'm getting really tired of people that always want a free lunch (see: Occupy Movement demands)... life choices have consequences, a living must be earned, and I don't want to support some jackass that doesn't want to work for the things they want in life.
Beer, now there's a temporary solution -- Homer Jay S.
Because the right to bear arms is in there too, but you don't give guns to prisoners.
Stop being such a pussy and scared of everything.
"Home of the brave", my arse.
Americans don't treat this as an inalienable right. For example in the dialogues with the IRA they encouraged disarmament, not proliferation of firearms.
This is a dumb idea, maybe even worse than SOPA. Internet access isn't really that important, and adding all sorts of non-important things to 'inalienable rights' really detracts from the rights that ARE important. Just because a bunch of you are connected to the net so much that you would have withdrawal symptoms doesn't mean the Internet is special, and more than a telephone or television. Some people would probably be better off disconnected for a while: it would enable them to rejoin 'real life'. But, no worry, I have no doubt that this plan will be a miserable failure. However, it would be far better to petition for some law that brings due process to IP infringement issues, and certifies that media companies have no special rights in enforcement of collection of royalties (i.e. no free money from black CD sales like Canada or Internet tax for media companies like in France).