Brazil Approves Internet Bill of Rights

First time accepted submitter Dr.Potato (247646) writes "After more than three years being discussed, Brazil's Internet Bill of Rights was approved on April 22nd (and in Portuguese). It was rushed through the senate in order that president Dilma Roussef could sign it during the meeting on internet governance that occurs in São Paulo this week. In the bill of rights, among other things, net neutrality was maintained, providers will not be legally responsible for content published by users (but are forced to take it down when legally requested) and internet providers are obliged to keep records of users' access for six months and can't pass this responsibility to other companies." Brazilian internet users may continue to have the right to be surveilled on social media, too.

Rights are not things that are given

[Anonymous Coward]

Rights given by men, can be taken by men; they are therefore not rights.

If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor.

Any alleged “right” of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right.

No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as “the right to enslave.”

If the internet is turned off, does a Brazilian have the right to force other men to turn it back on? This is absurd, there is no "right" to internet service any more than there is a right to free healthcare, housing, MTV or iPads.

And the government...

[fredprado]

has just given itself the right to apply censure in whatever it pleases, by using this law as a Trojan Horse and inserting in it a vague statement regarding what is unacceptable and not protected by freedom of speech.

Re:Rights are not things that are given

[Anonymous Coward]

Rights are inherent things, call it god given or natural, whatever you like. But they are not things granted by others, those things are privliges.

You have the right to life for example, you do not have the right to eat steak every day. Do you disagree with this?

That some government recogize rights and some do not is clear, but you cannot just make them up as you please, it doesn't work that way.

Pretending that things are rights that clearly are not in fact cheapens those things that are rights.