I would argue that it is on par with a human being's right to be informed (read the news, buy books, etc.) Whether you call those basic human rights it's all up to you. The UN seems to think that it is a basic human right though.

I don't know where you live, but where I live they still print physical books and newspapers. Maybe someday it will only be possible to be informed if you have Internet access, but that day isn't today.

The practicality of access to such rights changes when you make the choice to become a "refugee"/"fugitive", however.

Incidentally, this is exactly what hollywood and other big publishers want. Supporting surveillance is a really cool way for them to take control of the web, undermine it even more and then reap profits without worrying about all those bills like SOPA or PIPA that never seem to pass. Hell, they don't even have to face a backlash anymore!

IMO, pushing bills for changes in laws or copyrighting is probably their second best bet. Their best bet is to push people away from the web -- like they succeeded with physical books by dumbing down ebooks as much as they could.

The UN considers it so, but I was referring to Assange not being able to leave the Ecuadorian embassy for over 4 years.

That's a twisting of language. He's perfectly able to. He _chooses_ not to.

You've just justified first world countries creating an artificial prison for political reasons. I am not surprised, as so many Americans justify and support Guantanamo Bay (and the holding of prisoners without charges or trial indefinitely).

America has become the Black Mirror reflection of itself and its foundational ideals, and is a terrible world role model.

Funnily, I am not American, though I do live in the US. British, and Australian by birth and heritage.

And I have never once claimed that the US is a role model for the world. In fact, a quick glance at my comment history would show that in many areas, I believe quite the opposite.

The artificial prison was of his own making, not that of any country. He chose to seek asylum, blaming a lurking boogeyman ready to extradite and or execute him, and continued to use this, rebuffing multiple attempts to resolve the issue (and arguably in many ways no other person would be allowed to do, dictating how, when or indeed if he would be allowed to be interviewed).

Certainly, many governments act in appalling ways. But Assange put himself in a predicament where he is now in legal hot water for his _actual_ avoidance of due process for _alleged_ activities.

Not like Guatanamo.

And not like your ad hominem attacks upon me to suit your cause.

As did I. I would argue the advance of tech, code as law (effect of code for most of us), and that imbalance warrant elevating the importance of Internet access.

Would not denial of communication be a form of imprisonment?