By making it an inalienable right, a right which can not be denied, it becomes a requirement of the government to provided to all residents. If one has an inalienable right, then whether one can buy it or not is irrelevant because it becomes the burden of the government to provide it.
Life is not an inalienable right. The fact that one can through due process of law have one's life ended is proof of that. An inalienable right, by definition, can not be denied or removed.
I have never had a problem opening a bank account or getting a job without an email address. Neither are necessary unless the job itself requires an email address.
If you read the Bill of Rights, you will see that it is actually a list of things Americans have rights to be free of, not a list of things they to which the have a right. It is one of the biggest mistakes people make about the Bill of Rights. It assumes a right of free speech, peaceful assembly, even a right to bear arms, and prohibits the federal government from taking those rights away. This is a very big difference from a right, let alone an inalienable right, to some specific thing.
An inalienable right can not be denied, at all, period. Free speech is not an inalienable right. And, the First Amendment does not grant a right to free speech nor make such a right inalienable. It states that the "Congress shall make no law"... It prevents the government from making a law, it does not grant the right. It assumes the right exists and prevents the FEDERAL government from interfering with it. And, as proof that free speech is not inalienable, look at the laws preventing one from inciting rights and yelling fire in a crowded movie theater.
The First Amendment is a right FROM something. It is not, as this law would be, an inalienable right TO something.
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.
The "right to bear arms" is a right to a gun. It is a right to not have bearing arms being restricted. This law is a right to a specific thing, internet access. The equivalent right would be a right to a gun. But, that is not what the Second Amendment provides. It provides that the right to bear arms not be infringed. There is a subtle but important difference.
Those are part of the Declaration of Independence and not apart of the Constitution. Also, it does not say you have a right to a pony, merely to pursue owning a pony if that makes you happy. In other words, you have an inalienable right to be happy, but it does not specifically state you have a right to a pony. This law would be the equivalent of saying "You have a right to a pony".
No, the Bill of Rights does not mention any inalienable rights at all. It only mentions rights to be free of certain laws and actions by the government and specifically limits the powers of the federal government.
Seriously, have you actually read the Bill of Rights?
That is because the right isn't to a free press, free speech, and to bear arms. It is a right to Congress not passing a law preventing or abridging those rights. That is why Amendment 1 begins "Congress shall make no law", and why Amendment 2 ends "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The Bill of Rights is not a list of rights to certain things. It is a list of rights to be free of certain things and laws. The law proposed would be a right to something, not a right to be free of something.
An inalienable right is a right that cannot be taken away or restricted in any way. Libraries would not be able to close nor could any content be blocked, including hard core porn, snuff and torture video, etc. And, if demand could not be met, the libraries would be required by law to install more computers to meet the demand because the right is being alienated by lack of access.
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".
Basically, see my other comment where I talk about unintended consequences. The wording of this entails huge unintended consequences, just like every law that provides a right to something.
The intent is irrelevant when the wording involves an inalienable right to something. Just look at the laws involving rights passed in the last 50 years. How many have been rights from something, like those making up the Bill of Rights, and how many have been rights to something, like the ADA?
The government can infringe on people's right to be free of something (if one reads the Bill of Rights, one will see that the rights are not rights to things but rather rights to be free of things), but it cannot infringe on an inalienable right. By definition, an inalienable right is a right that cannot be infringed upon by the government. It is even worse to have an inalienable right to something.
A good example of why rights to things are bad is the public restroom problem in NYC. NYC has a huge public restroom shortage. The government wanted to put in automatic self-cleaning public toilets, like are available in many European cities. There was only one problem. The Americans with Disabilities Act gave disabled people the right of equal access and the automatic toilets weren't wheel chair accessible. If NYC were going to put in the automatic toilets, it would also have to put in wheel-chair accessible toilets that were not self-cleaning and required an attendant. The government said it would pass an ordinance requiring all establishments to provided restroom access for free to anyone in a wheelchair or needing special accommodation if they would not object to the automatic self-cleaning toilets. Wheelchair dependent people threatened to sue because it was not the same under the letter of the law. Having both toilets was not fiscally feasible. The end result was that NYC didn't put in a needed service because the federal government gave a right to something to a special group and that group would not compromise.
Even now, it would be possible to change the ADA to make it possible for NYC to put in those toilets, but if it were an inalienable right, it would be impossible to change the law.
The government takes the easements for the benefit of the community at large. No easement, not power lines, no phone lines, no sewer lines, not water lines, The use of the easements comes with government mandated actions and oversight.
You are ignoring the word "inalienable". A right that is inalienable is a right that can not be taken away, at all. Even if one smashes up one's laptop, the government would still be required to give one a new one, even as one sat in jail or prison waiting trial.
The right to free speech is not "inalienable". One's right to free speech is curbed in respect to other people's rights. An inalienable right cannot be curbed.
This is not "the right to use the internet". This would make it an "inalienable right", meaning that if one does not have the means to access the internet, the government would have to provide the means. Also, it would mean places like libraries couldn't prevent someone from looking at hard core porn or downloading viruses. In fact, it might even mean places like Kinko's would be prevented from charging for internet access.
The internet is made up of other people's networks. One uses the internet through access provided, for profit, by other people. Making internet access an inalienable right would mean giving one group of people, those without internet access, a right to the property of other people, ISP owners. Also, it would require that people who have no means of access the internet (i.e. someone without a computer), the means to do so. Libraries, etc. are not acceptable because then the libraries would have to be open 24/7, otherwise the person "inalienable" right is being alienated for part of the day. Then, there is the small problem of content filtering. Libraries would be unable to prevent people from looking at hard core porn.
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.
If you were white, then you school couldn't be 100% minority, whatever that means. Perhaps you should go read an unbiased history book.
I read your self-reply and am amazed you stated straight out that you are, in fact, a racists. I like how you say you were pulled over for "driving while black" while stating you are white, which means you could not be pulled over for it. You are really pathetic. You should get some professional help to deal with your obvious self-hating delusion.
Is it possible, yes. Is that what the science says? No.
And, just to turn your own sword against you,
Even if this were true (and you have absolutely no evidence to back any of it up), is it not possible that fewer black teenagers spend their time in front of computers because black teenagers are more likely to be playing doing and selling drugs, hanging out with their gangs, watching TV, playing video games, and playing sports thinking that sports is their ticket to success because they don't understand that it is lottery odds against becoming a sports star?
Slashdot Mirror
By making it an inalienable right, a right which can not be denied, it becomes a requirement of the government to provided to all residents. If one has an inalienable right, then whether one can buy it or not is irrelevant because it becomes the burden of the government to provide it.
Life is not an inalienable right. The fact that one can through due process of law have one's life ended is proof of that. An inalienable right, by definition, can not be denied or removed.
I have never had a problem opening a bank account or getting a job without an email address. Neither are necessary unless the job itself requires an email address.
If you read the Bill of Rights, you will see that it is actually a list of things Americans have rights to be free of, not a list of things they to which the have a right. It is one of the biggest mistakes people make about the Bill of Rights. It assumes a right of free speech, peaceful assembly, even a right to bear arms, and prohibits the federal government from taking those rights away. This is a very big difference from a right, let alone an inalienable right, to some specific thing.
inalienable right: a right according to natural law, a right that cannot be taken away, denied, or transferred
An inalienable right can not be denied, at all, period. Free speech is not an inalienable right. And, the First Amendment does not grant a right to free speech nor make such a right inalienable. It states that the "Congress shall make no law"... It prevents the government from making a law, it does not grant the right. It assumes the right exists and prevents the FEDERAL government from interfering with it. And, as proof that free speech is not inalienable, look at the laws preventing one from inciting rights and yelling fire in a crowded movie theater.
The First Amendment is a right FROM something. It is not, as this law would be, an inalienable right TO something.
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.
The "right to bear arms" is a right to a gun. It is a right to not have bearing arms being restricted. This law is a right to a specific thing, internet access. The equivalent right would be a right to a gun. But, that is not what the Second Amendment provides. It provides that the right to bear arms not be infringed. There is a subtle but important difference.
Those are part of the Declaration of Independence and not apart of the Constitution. Also, it does not say you have a right to a pony, merely to pursue owning a pony if that makes you happy. In other words, you have an inalienable right to be happy, but it does not specifically state you have a right to a pony. This law would be the equivalent of saying "You have a right to a pony".
No, the Bill of Rights does not mention any inalienable rights at all. It only mentions rights to be free of certain laws and actions by the government and specifically limits the powers of the federal government.
Seriously, have you actually read the Bill of Rights?
That is because the right isn't to a free press, free speech, and to bear arms. It is a right to Congress not passing a law preventing or abridging those rights. That is why Amendment 1 begins "Congress shall make no law", and why Amendment 2 ends "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The Bill of Rights is not a list of rights to certain things. It is a list of rights to be free of certain things and laws. The law proposed would be a right to something, not a right to be free of something.
So, you can go to your public library at 3am and use the computers? How about going in at 3pm and looking at BDSM porn?
If you can't do both of those, then your right to use those computers is being alienated and the demand is for an "inalienable right".
An inalienable right is a right that cannot be taken away or restricted in any way. Libraries would not be able to close nor could any content be blocked, including hard core porn, snuff and torture video, etc. And, if demand could not be met, the libraries would be required by law to install more computers to meet the demand because the right is being alienated by lack of access.
Inalienable is the operative term here.
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".
Apparently, you do not understand the meaning of the word "inalienable".
Basically, see my other comment where I talk about unintended consequences. The wording of this entails huge unintended consequences, just like every law that provides a right to something.
The intent is irrelevant when the wording involves an inalienable right to something. Just look at the laws involving rights passed in the last 50 years. How many have been rights from something, like those making up the Bill of Rights, and how many have been rights to something, like the ADA?
The government can infringe on people's right to be free of something (if one reads the Bill of Rights, one will see that the rights are not rights to things but rather rights to be free of things), but it cannot infringe on an inalienable right. By definition, an inalienable right is a right that cannot be infringed upon by the government. It is even worse to have an inalienable right to something.
A good example of why rights to things are bad is the public restroom problem in NYC. NYC has a huge public restroom shortage. The government wanted to put in automatic self-cleaning public toilets, like are available in many European cities. There was only one problem. The Americans with Disabilities Act gave disabled people the right of equal access and the automatic toilets weren't wheel chair accessible. If NYC were going to put in the automatic toilets, it would also have to put in wheel-chair accessible toilets that were not self-cleaning and required an attendant. The government said it would pass an ordinance requiring all establishments to provided restroom access for free to anyone in a wheelchair or needing special accommodation if they would not object to the automatic self-cleaning toilets. Wheelchair dependent people threatened to sue because it was not the same under the letter of the law. Having both toilets was not fiscally feasible. The end result was that NYC didn't put in a needed service because the federal government gave a right to something to a special group and that group would not compromise.
Even now, it would be possible to change the ADA to make it possible for NYC to put in those toilets, but if it were an inalienable right, it would be impossible to change the law.
The government takes the easements for the benefit of the community at large. No easement, not power lines, no phone lines, no sewer lines, not water lines, The use of the easements comes with government mandated actions and oversight.
You are ignoring the word "inalienable". A right that is inalienable is a right that can not be taken away, at all. Even if one smashes up one's laptop, the government would still be required to give one a new one, even as one sat in jail or prison waiting trial.
The right to free speech is not "inalienable". One's right to free speech is curbed in respect to other people's rights. An inalienable right cannot be curbed.
That is not what an "inalienable right" is. You should try looking up the meaning of things before making pronouncements.
Aww, look at the little flaim-baiting troll. You didn't even bother to refute any of my post. Guess you are just too stupid to do so.
This is not "the right to use the internet". This would make it an "inalienable right", meaning that if one does not have the means to access the internet, the government would have to provide the means. Also, it would mean places like libraries couldn't prevent someone from looking at hard core porn or downloading viruses. In fact, it might even mean places like Kinko's would be prevented from charging for internet access.
The internet is made up of other people's networks. One uses the internet through access provided, for profit, by other people. Making internet access an inalienable right would mean giving one group of people, those without internet access, a right to the property of other people, ISP owners. Also, it would require that people who have no means of access the internet (i.e. someone without a computer), the means to do so. Libraries, etc. are not acceptable because then the libraries would have to be open 24/7, otherwise the person "inalienable" right is being alienated for part of the day. Then, there is the small problem of content filtering. Libraries would be unable to prevent people from looking at hard core porn.
Are you getting the idea?
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.
If you were white, then you school couldn't be 100% minority, whatever that means. Perhaps you should go read an unbiased history book.
I read your self-reply and am amazed you stated straight out that you are, in fact, a racists. I like how you say you were pulled over for "driving while black" while stating you are white, which means you could not be pulled over for it. You are really pathetic. You should get some professional help to deal with your obvious self-hating delusion.
You mean besides they have sections that address exactly what you are talking about? BTW, have you ever heard of a library?
Is it possible, yes. Is that what the science says? No.
And, just to turn your own sword against you,
Even if this were true (and you have absolutely no evidence to back any of it up), is it not possible that fewer black teenagers spend their time in front of computers because black teenagers are more likely to be playing doing and selling drugs, hanging out with their gangs, watching TV, playing video games, and playing sports thinking that sports is their ticket to success because they don't understand that it is lottery odds against becoming a sports star?