foxnews.com— France's highest court has inflicted an embarrassing blow to President Sarkozy by cutting the heart out of a law that was supposed to put France in the forefront of the fight against piracy on the internet.
Jun 15, 2009View in Crawl 4
The internet is NOT an inalienable right.It is a right that is comparable to the right to free speech and the right to education.Yes it is a service that has to be provided by someone else, but as long as you are willing to abide by the service fee it cannot be taken away from you.What the Court is getting at is that, unless it can be proven BEYOND REASONABLE doubt that you are a copyright infringer IN A COURT OF LAW, you have a right to use the internet.This is the same as the right to free speech, where unless the court rules that you are doing something illegal (such as libel or slander), you have the right to publish whatever you want.The three-strikes law essentially said that internet could be cut off without any legal action, THAT is against the right to free communication.
What can i say except "Oh snap!" No matter what people say about the French, the French people usually get what the French people want, that sniveling terrier Sarkozy and his corporate lackeys will get their just deserve should he continue to pursue the stupidity of three strikes come election time.
The internet is a basic human right? As much as I support the free access to information, whether it be how Betsy Ross came up with the flag, or protests, whatever, I see a lot of problems with declaring the internet a basic human right. I think it boils down to the fact that generally, we do not use our rights responsibly. Porn, myspace, or facebook, blogs filled with half truths, is not using this thing called internet, responsibly. Sure, it can be fun, and that is not a bad thing, but rights, are there for a reason, not just fun. Like our right to bear arms in America however, I would rather see a few misuse something, and the right still be there, than for it not to be there at all. When we get to the day where we must turn our personal guns on our own govt, the right to own one will seem priceless, even with the tons of misuse they get.I think more appropriate, courts, and the government body, should rule that while a copyright holder has the right to protect his or her material, that right may not supersede the rights of others to privacy. The problem with that is, too many in government pretend our constitutional rights end in the private sector. We have settled for this for way too long.
@ abhiroop: You'd think so, but burning an American flag used to be protected speech, but now it isn't. And if you think you can post all over the internet all kinds of al Queda talking points and NOT have homeland security watching you, you're thinking of a very different USA from the one I live in...
manjas8Jun 15, 2009
Every person should have the ability to access the internet. I think calling it a 'human right' is a little dramatic though.
the8thbitJun 16, 2009
"Either way, he's dead."I'm pretty sure every situation eventually ends that way.
abhiroopJun 16, 2009
The internet is NOT an inalienable right.It is a right that is comparable to the right to free speech and the right to education.Yes it is a service that has to be provided by someone else, but as long as you are willing to abide by the service fee it cannot be taken away from you.What the Court is getting at is that, unless it can be proven BEYOND REASONABLE doubt that you are a copyright infringer IN A COURT OF LAW, you have a right to use the internet.This is the same as the right to free speech, where unless the court rules that you are doing something illegal (such as libel or slander), you have the right to publish whatever you want.The three-strikes law essentially said that internet could be cut off without any legal action, THAT is against the right to free communication.
abhiroopJun 16, 2009
"communicating anti-US sentiments online" - right to free speech.
niczarJun 16, 2009
Are you willing to give up sleeves for the right to bare arms?
twilightmadnessJun 16, 2009
What can i say except "Oh snap!" No matter what people say about the French, the French people usually get what the French people want, that sniveling terrier Sarkozy and his corporate lackeys will get their just deserve should he continue to pursue the stupidity of three strikes come election time.
captaintrips121Jun 16, 2009
The internet is a basic human right? As much as I support the free access to information, whether it be how Betsy Ross came up with the flag, or protests, whatever, I see a lot of problems with declaring the internet a basic human right. I think it boils down to the fact that generally, we do not use our rights responsibly. Porn, myspace, or facebook, blogs filled with half truths, is not using this thing called internet, responsibly. Sure, it can be fun, and that is not a bad thing, but rights, are there for a reason, not just fun. Like our right to bear arms in America however, I would rather see a few misuse something, and the right still be there, than for it not to be there at all. When we get to the day where we must turn our personal guns on our own govt, the right to own one will seem priceless, even with the tons of misuse they get.I think more appropriate, courts, and the government body, should rule that while a copyright holder has the right to protect his or her material, that right may not supersede the rights of others to privacy. The problem with that is, too many in government pretend our constitutional rights end in the private sector. We have settled for this for way too long.
gideon1554Jun 16, 2009
I wasn't going to say anything but... 'gay baby' sums it up.
mweatherJun 16, 2009
So, nobody?
whirlingdervJun 19, 2009
@ abhiroop: You'd think so, but burning an American flag used to be protected speech, but now it isn't. And if you think you can post all over the internet all kinds of al Queda talking points and NOT have homeland security watching you, you're thinking of a very different USA from the one I live in...