Hawaii is considering banning homeless people from public transportation, in preparation for a new transit system coming online. While the article (and law) target “body odor”, such a proposition appears to these eyes to be targeted towards the homeless who likely do not have alternative means of transportation at their disposal.

Firefighters are being told not to drink energy drinks, as they dehydrate. Red Bull states that their drink is a functional drink and not a thirst-quencher. Thus, individuals should make sure that they drink lots of water when engaging in physical activity and drinking Red Bull.

It is true. Hot girls make guys dumb.

In response to an article in the Wall Street Journal this past weekend, BoingBoing’s Cory Doctorow postulated that Internet access will be considered a human right within five years.

Why should it be? The argument for it is buried in the middle of theWall Street Journal article:
Many job and housing applications must be submitted online.

A succinct argument, to be sure, but a strong one. The ability to find work and shelter is tied to our ability to have access to the Internet. If this is not a basic human right in a capitalist democracy — to be permitted the ability to search for the means to accumulate capital — then I am not sure what is. In this sense, Mr. Doctorow is correct. One wonders if the French have considered this sort of question when passing their “three strikes” law recently.

However The Wall Street Journal‘s article has a different tone to the one that Mr. Doctorow spins for it. Reading it gives the sense that the reporter (or their editor) thinks that a homeless person spending what little money they have on laptops amounts to escapism.

Having been convinced by one sentence in the Wall Street Journal that this is a right, what needs to be overcome?

First is the view that Internet access is a privlege. You and I might not hold this view, but not everybody has read that sentence — and some might not finding a convincing argument. For proof, simply see France’s new law (above), in which Internet access can be cut without any sort of process or hearing for the accused copyright infringer. Laws of this sort have been proposed in many governments worldwide.

Second is a decision as to what this means. Does the government have a responsibility to subsidize connectivity, as it does with housing? Will they provide universal coverage? What about computers? Is there a minimum quality? What happens if someone loses, damages, or is robbed of their subsidized computer?

Or will there just be free computer labs, cutting in on the Internet Cafe business?

If and when such a right is enshrined, different states and different governments will surely take different approaches. One cannot imagine the United States providing free computers or Internet connections, but some European countries might think differently.