- Joined
- Jul 20, 2005
- Messages
- 20,688
- Reaction score
- 7,320
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
My point is if the government decides whether you can have it or not, then it's not a right. If the government can give it by passing a law, then they can easily take it away by passing another law.
Yes, they can take it away. But in this country, the government can also pass a constitutional amendment taking away your right to free speech. Does that make it any less of a right, just because the POTENTIAL for repeal exists?
IMO, rights are defined by the government. The Finnish government has decided that internet access is a fundamental right, and therefore it is a fundamental right in Finland. The question of whether it SHOULD be a fundamental right is a separate question entirely. I think the phrase "fundamental right" is a red herring, because the whole concept of rights varies dramatically from one country (or even one political party) to another. A better debate to have is whether the government should guarantee everyone access to broadband.
Last edited: