Humans have rights to information. Before the Internet, there were other means of accessing information, which are also our fundamental human rights. This includes information we access through books, media, journalism, etc.; it's just that the Internet is a new channel of information. And so yes, it's our fundamental human right to access the Internet.
So if for some reason we are being deprived of Internet access, it's actually an infringement on our human rights, especially when it's deliberate. Take, for instance, here in my country, Nigeria. There was a time our former president deprived us of access to Twitter, not because Twitter was becoming a threat to national security; it was simply because it's a channel where people air their views and see the bitter truth that they don't want to hear. The president now uses his power to block Twitter and denies people such pool information.
...Let's talk about the effects of such a ruling if it should be passed...
Now, there are countries that are worse than mine. Let me use a typical example, which is North Korea. North Korea as a country is a prison. This is because they can't do what they want to do freely. Everything you do must be things that are sanctioned. You don't use the Internet; you don't use this or that. It's a kind of confinement in a geographical space where you don't have access to other things happening in the world. So the effect is simply living in isolation. You basically won't know what is happening around the world; that's number one.
Secondly, even if there are cases, for example, the COVID-19 outbreak pandemic that happened around the world, you wouldn't have access to such vital information, and before you know it, it becomes a threat to your life, your safety, and all that.
Knowledge is power, so when you have no access to what is happening around you or in other countries, the government will now manipulate you to the core because you don't have information. You have been deprived of that knowledge, so whatever they say is what it is. Obviously, there will be manipulation there.
Then again there are bodies, something like the United Nations (UN), using Nigeria as an example. When there was END SARS, that term from police brutality, people had access to let the world know what was happening in the country. If you are deprived of such access, things will be happening, and the United Nations do not even know that people's human rights are being violated because they will have no means of knowing. They have blocked every access to the outside world. People will be going about their daily activities, and police will stop them, collect their phones, and violate their human rights. Some people end up being killed for not just any reason, no trial, no nothing. They are just the judge and the jury, and they convict you; you become a past tense. So these kinds of things will happen if those searchlights are not on the country as a result of access to the Internet and any other means of communication.
Overall, stopping people from having access to the internet is an infringement on our human rights. Also, such a ruling is not something that we can live with in the long run; I can't imagine humans living in the dark because that would be one of the implications of banning the Internet. Regardless of its negative effects on lives, its positive impacts cannot be overlooked, and so banning the Internet can only be an unrealistic dream; instead, restrictions can be placed to make things more balanced.
This is my response to the #HiveLearners community contest on the topic titled, A Fundamental Human Right.
Posted Using INLEO