Vinton G. Cerf’s article, “Internet Access is Not a Human Right”, discusses about the issue raised from the relationship between internet access and the human right. Cerf argues against the idea that recognizes internet access as a human right. A brief analysis of the purpose, audience, arrangement and content of the article can help us to see how Cerf makes a convincing conclusion based on the argument discussion. The decisive title of the article, “Internet Access is Not a Human Right”, makes it clear that it is a persuasive work. Cerf’s purpose is to refute the opponent and persuade that internet access is a new way allowing people to exercise their rights instead of a right itself, and further protection on internet users
…show more content…
Cerf first states the possible reasons why people start to think whether internet access is or should be a civil or human right. The explanation enables readers to agree with Cerf’s words and keep reading the article. Cerf lists easy and universally agreed examples first and allows readers to apply the simple principle to the next level ideas. For example, he states that people needed horse to make a living, but “important right in that case was the right to make a living, not the right to a horse” (Liberal Studies Reader P. 357). It is easy to understand and most of people may agree with it. Then Cerf applies the same theory back to the discussion topic, which is that people need internet access to access information, the important right is the right to communicate not the right to the internet access. The same technique is also utilized in the next idea, whether the Internet access is a civil right. Cerf first differed civil rights from human rights, as civil rights are “conferred upon us by law, not intrinsic to us as human beings” (Liberal Studies Reader P. 357). Then another simple example is explained here, there is a common sense that telephone service must be available in the whole country. Therefore, if the government made a policy ensuring access, then internet access would become a civil right. Finally, Cerf appeals to engineers to be aware of their civil responsibility, which is ensuring the safety of users online. Therefore, the conclusion is based on the discussion above, improving internet as a part of improving the human condition “must be done with an appreciation for the civil and human rights than deserve protection” (Liberal Studies Reader P. 358). It is not related to that access itself is such a
Cerf first states the possible reasons why people start to think whether internet access is or should be a civil or human right. The explanation enables readers to agree with Cerf’s words and keep reading the article. Cerf lists easy and universally agreed examples first and allows readers to apply the simple principle to the next level ideas. For example, he states that people needed horse to make a living, but “important right in that case was the right to make a living, not the right to a horse” (Liberal Studies Reader P. 357). It is easy to understand and most of people may agree with it. Then Cerf applies the same theory back to the discussion topic, which is that people need internet access to access information, the important right is the right to communicate not the right to the internet access. The same technique is also utilized in the next idea, whether the Internet access is a civil right. Cerf first differed civil rights from human rights, as civil rights are “conferred upon us by law, not intrinsic to us as human beings” (Liberal Studies Reader P. 357). Then another simple example is explained here, there is a common sense that telephone service must be available in the whole country. Therefore, if the government made a policy ensuring access, then internet access would become a civil right. Finally, Cerf appeals to engineers to be aware of their civil responsibility, which is ensuring the safety of users online. Therefore, the conclusion is based on the discussion above, improving internet as a part of improving the human condition “must be done with an appreciation for the civil and human rights than deserve protection” (Liberal Studies Reader P. 358). It is not related to that access itself is such a