Back in April, the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, supported a law which was passed by parliament creating a policing group which would track those who were illegally downloading copyrighted material—in other words, those who were committing piracy, and empowered that group to eventually cut off the criminal’s access to the Internet if they continued their illegal ways.
Many criticized the law as creating a “big brother” peering over the shoulders of Internet users, and several actually claimed it was technically not workable. The Socialists even argued that the law violated the notion of separation of powers by creating an extra-judicial organization with powers to punish perpetrators.
In June, France’s highest court found that the law did in fact violate the separation of powers and that it also violated the presumption of innocence because alleged pirates would have their Internet access cut off without being afforded the opportunity to defend themselves.
The court also added one more provocative reason to strike down the law—that denying Internet access to someone was a violation of their human rights.
Certainly access to communications and information enhances quality of life. And, as we’ve recently observed, the Internet can facilitate immediate knowledge of true human rights violations, such as how Twitter was used by protesters in Iran to organize and to report their situations to the world.
However, to conclude that cutting off Internet access is a violation of human rights is simply absurd.
To characterize denial of Internet access a violation of human rights devalues true human rights violations, such as political oppression, illegitimate elections, arbitrary arrest, torture, rape, and genocide.
Finally, it’s more than ironic that France, a country that has provided safe havens for genocidal African dictators and brutal South American strongmen, now considers Internet access to be a basic human right.