The subject of the “right” to access the internet has come up recently. Here is the most recent example of why this subject is important.
The concept has been dismissed, in some seemingly surprising corners, from a myopic and exclusively economic perspective of who should ‘pay’ for that access, viewing it as the expansion of the entitlement mindset; another ploy for expanding government, and an excuse to relieve taxpayers of even more money to feed the government maw. It’s a valid concern, but misses a greater point altogether.
When I hear the phrase “right to access the internet”, what immediately springs to mind is that it is the perfect flip side of something else - freedom of speech. For if a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make noise? Likewise, if people are free as they please to express their opinions, but no one can read what they’ve written, or hear what they’ve said, is that an actual freedom? The point being, that for the communication of ideas, and the free exchange of ideas amongst mankind to occur, there has to be not only a sender, but a receiver, as well - and the most egregious practitioners of censorship seek to silence not simply the utterance of opinions they disagree with, they seek to muffle those ideas by controlling people’s ability to receive or access the message.
The ability to receive the message is just as important as the ability to send it - oppressive regimes such as those in Iran or Venezuela understand this full well, and employ it with mixed success as a form of Information Warfare upon their own people, and against the outside world, from learning what sorts of oppression they’ve gotten up to.
Now, should the taxpayer be levied with the burden of paying to ensure each and every individual has monetarily free access, whenever and wherever they choose? No, because in this sense the critics of the notion from a purely economic perspective have a valid point - it is not the government’s role to provide this as a service, particularly when there is a free market option for fulfillment. Just as with the publication of books, or the operation of radio and television - concepts and models we are readily familiar with. The market, in response to demand, will solve the issue, in the most economically responsible method - it is what free markets do - satisfy supply and demand, in economically sound ways. The government’s role should be to basically get out of the way, or, if this is deemed a priority (as I would be in favor of considering it) provide incentive through tax breaks and the removal of obstructive regulation to avoid placing artificial and unnecessary burdens upon the effort.
To simply consider this from one narrow perspective misses the forest for the trees - the point, and I’m guessing the larger response reflected in the polling - is indeed something to be considered a fundamental human right - the free and unfettered exchange of ideas, which is, ultimately, the core concept of what is enshrined in the Constitution as “freedom of speech”.
