Actually now we do have that right (to force the internet back on).
1. You are choosing one definition of right based on your personal preference and chosen literature, and you are stating that anything different is not and cannot be right (pun intended).
Another definition is that a right is something a certain society agrees upon. Under your definition there can be no such thing as "the right to enslave". But in reality this right was used by many people over time. Even life is a society given right, this is obvious since in several countries there is death penalty. If people can lose the right to life, by having it taken by men, it is certainly a right given by men, as any other right.
2. In Brazil the constitution is the highest law, so all that discussion about what is a right and what is not doesn't really apply to this posts subject, if it says it's a right, it counts as a right and that's what matters in this case. We can have academic discussions about the subject, but if things go to court the constitution and the laws prevail. In spite of any feelings of injustice against the rich you might feel.
3. There is a thing called "modern constitutions" and it is normal in them to add many more things than what was normal to add when the American constitution was created (instead of only "regulating" the existence of the country, it "regulates" anything that was considered important by the legislators and also guides how the government is supposed to behave and what to pursue when those rights aren't immediately achievable). In Brazil we have one of those "modern constitutions" (quotes in "modern constitutions" because this is an actual academic term).
4. In the Brazilian constitution there is a list of constitutional protected and/or pursued fundamental rights, somewhat similar to what the amendments do in the US Constitution but broader. That list does include freedom of speech, education, healthcare, access to culture and information, freedom to come and go, privacy, besides several other rights, but does not include any products or brands (like your ipad and mtv examples). *
Note: It is important to understand before the next session of comments that Brazil is a third world country and that the quality of anything here is questionable to say the least or "pretty shit" to be precise.
4.1 (implications of 4)
4.1.1 We do have free schools up to high school for everybody and many free universities (the best universities in the country are the free ones). Since it was impossible to achieve free universal superior education instantly, to increase availability and accessibility over time is government's obligation and they've been doing it.
4.1.2 We do have free healthcare.
4.1.3 For several years now, electricity and water has been considered a fundamental right. If we don't pay the bill, and the company cuts it off, it will take a day to have it back by judicial order. Eventually we will have to pay the bill, but there is a right to electricity, just as much as to healthcare or housing (other thing that is increasing over time).
As society evolves, the minimum standards of education, etc, etc, go up, and it is the government's constitutional obligation to create laws and regulations to pursue what is established in the constitution. Some of what this new law establishes is just how to secure what already was in the constitution, but considering the existence of the internet. Like "access to culture and information" was something totally different in 1986 and today. Today it is questionable to say that you have access to information if you don't have access to the internet, so the new law does force the companies that provide it to turn it back on, and also to offer low budged options of internet service. The right to privacy is in the constitution, but unless there is a law that explicitly says that inspecting content and packet analysis are violations of that right, it is not illegal. Now we have that law. Not having net neutrality is basic
Slashdot Mirror
Actually now we do have that right (to force the internet back on).
1. You are choosing one definition of right based on your personal preference and chosen literature, and you are stating that anything different is not and cannot be right (pun intended). Another definition is that a right is something a certain society agrees upon. Under your definition there can be no such thing as "the right to enslave". But in reality this right was used by many people over time. Even life is a society given right, this is obvious since in several countries there is death penalty. If people can lose the right to life, by having it taken by men, it is certainly a right given by men, as any other right.
2. In Brazil the constitution is the highest law, so all that discussion about what is a right and what is not doesn't really apply to this posts subject, if it says it's a right, it counts as a right and that's what matters in this case. We can have academic discussions about the subject, but if things go to court the constitution and the laws prevail. In spite of any feelings of injustice against the rich you might feel.
3. There is a thing called "modern constitutions" and it is normal in them to add many more things than what was normal to add when the American constitution was created (instead of only "regulating" the existence of the country, it "regulates" anything that was considered important by the legislators and also guides how the government is supposed to behave and what to pursue when those rights aren't immediately achievable). In Brazil we have one of those "modern constitutions" (quotes in "modern constitutions" because this is an actual academic term).
4. In the Brazilian constitution there is a list of constitutional protected and/or pursued fundamental rights, somewhat similar to what the amendments do in the US Constitution but broader. That list does include freedom of speech, education, healthcare, access to culture and information, freedom to come and go, privacy, besides several other rights, but does not include any products or brands (like your ipad and mtv examples). *
Note: It is important to understand before the next session of comments that Brazil is a third world country and that the quality of anything here is questionable to say the least or "pretty shit" to be precise.
4.1 (implications of 4)
4.1.1 We do have free schools up to high school for everybody and many free universities (the best universities in the country are the free ones). Since it was impossible to achieve free universal superior education instantly, to increase availability and accessibility over time is government's obligation and they've been doing it.
4.1.2 We do have free healthcare.
4.1.3 For several years now, electricity and water has been considered a fundamental right. If we don't pay the bill, and the company cuts it off, it will take a day to have it back by judicial order. Eventually we will have to pay the bill, but there is a right to electricity, just as much as to healthcare or housing (other thing that is increasing over time).
As society evolves, the minimum standards of education, etc, etc, go up, and it is the government's constitutional obligation to create laws and regulations to pursue what is established in the constitution. Some of what this new law establishes is just how to secure what already was in the constitution, but considering the existence of the internet. Like "access to culture and information" was something totally different in 1986 and today. Today it is questionable to say that you have access to information if you don't have access to the internet, so the new law does force the companies that provide it to turn it back on, and also to offer low budged options of internet service. The right to privacy is in the constitution, but unless there is a law that explicitly says that inspecting content and packet analysis are violations of that right, it is not illegal. Now we have that law. Not having net neutrality is basic