For example, your right not to be murdered and my right to "freedom" are not in contradiction if my right to freedom is constrained to apply only to those actions of mine which have nil or negligible impact on others.
This is what I mean by conflicting rights: when they conflict, we constrain them. There are situations where it's murkier. Instead of "negative" rights and corresponding obligations (I have a right not to be murdered, so you have an obligation not to murder me) into "positive" ones (I have a right to life, you have an obligation to feed me if I'm starving and you have food). Suddenly you're constrained in a fundamental sense if I have a right to life: your doing anything other than feeding me has a horrible impact on me. Where do we draw the line at how much I can expect from you? To the point at which your not sacrificing other rights (this is Peter Singer's argument[1]), or do we just ignore positive rights/obligations altogether? Gets murky.
And when it gets that murky, it's silly to try to divide things we want/need into categories of "IsAHumanRight" and "IsNotAHumanRight".
-----
Cerf writes:
Yet all these philosophical arguments overlook a more fundamental issue: the responsibility of technology creators themselves to support human and civil rights.
If then said "so it doesn't matter if the internet's a human right, let's just help people use it for the betterment of the world, etc." then I'd be all on board. Instead he makes a big deal about not putting the internet into the sacred but ill-defined category of "IsAHumanRight", all the way up to making that his title, when it should be (IMHO) "Stop worrying about rights, help the Internet help people."
This is what I mean by conflicting rights: when they conflict, we constrain them. There are situations where it's murkier. Instead of "negative" rights and corresponding obligations (I have a right not to be murdered, so you have an obligation not to murder me) into "positive" ones (I have a right to life, you have an obligation to feed me if I'm starving and you have food). Suddenly you're constrained in a fundamental sense if I have a right to life: your doing anything other than feeding me has a horrible impact on me. Where do we draw the line at how much I can expect from you? To the point at which your not sacrificing other rights (this is Peter Singer's argument[1]), or do we just ignore positive rights/obligations altogether? Gets murky.
And when it gets that murky, it's silly to try to divide things we want/need into categories of "IsAHumanRight" and "IsNotAHumanRight".
-----
Cerf writes:
Yet all these philosophical arguments overlook a more fundamental issue: the responsibility of technology creators themselves to support human and civil rights.
If then said "so it doesn't matter if the internet's a human right, let's just help people use it for the betterment of the world, etc." then I'd be all on board. Instead he makes a big deal about not putting the internet into the sacred but ill-defined category of "IsAHumanRight", all the way up to making that his title, when it should be (IMHO) "Stop worrying about rights, help the Internet help people."
[1] http://www.amazon.com/World-Globalization-Professor-Peter-Si...