Hannah Garrett

Calfee

English 3

April 7, 2017

Human Or Civil Right?

The topic that everyone in the world has been talking about is if whether or not having

internet access is a human right. There have been several debates on this topic which bring in a

range of sources for each. People either believe that it is a human right and that everyone should

have access to it and other believe it is a civil right. With reading all of these papers, the answer

has become pretty clear on which side people should stand on. The article Internet Is Not a

Human Right perfectly argues against the articles Internet Freedom Is a Human Right and

The Case for (and Against) Internet as a Human Right that the internet is a civil right and not

a human right.

In the competing papers Internet Freedom Is a Human Right and The Case for (and

Against) Internet as a Human Right they argue that having internet access is essential for our

century. Both papers talk a lot about in order to have a strong connection with the rest of the

world we need internet to communicate with them. This is shown when Coons says, As with all

great moral challenges we face as an international community, continued American leadership

and engagement is essential if we are to succeed(Coons). This shows that he is addimat that in

order to stay a strong involved country we need to have internet to communicate with the

countries around us. In Adam Estes paper he writes about how since not everyone had a right to

have access to the internet there is now, the disconnect between technologists and politics
(Estes). Both of these essays argue that having the internet as a right is essential to having strong

communications with those around us and in other countries.

Now the argument the two papers made is a strong standpoint, but it is not strong enough

to hold up against Viton G. Cerfs paper. Cerf points out a lot of flaws to the statement that

internet is a human right. One of the flaws he points out he stated, But that argument, however

well meaning, misses a larger point: technology is an enabler of rights, not a right itself(Cerf).

Cerf points out that their intentions for making it a human right misses that it is not one, but

instead helps use a human right we have. He continues to back up this statement by saying it is a

civil right and says, Civil rights, after all, are different from human rights because they are

conferred upon us by law, not intrinsic to us as human beings(Cerf). He points out that having

access to the internet is a right we should have, but not a human right and that there is a

difference between the two. Cerf in less than two pages easily convinces the reader that the

internet is a means of which people use their human rights and that it is not a right within itself.

In conclusion, the internet is a civil right but is in no means a human right. Cerf in the

paper Internet Access Is Not a Human Right elegantly defeats the arguing two essays Internet

Freedom Is a Human Right and The Case for (and Against) Internet as a Human Right and

proves the flaws they have in their justification as to why it is a right. Humans do not need the

internet to survive thus meaning it is not a human right. People have lived without it before

which means we can survive without it some more. Not having internet access might disconnect

people from the rest of the world, but since we are alive and thriving we do not depend on it.