James Harkin asks whether access to the internet is now a human right? On the way towards arriving at an answer to the question, he considers whether it is proper to deny individuals access to it for internet-related misdemeanours of various kinds. He concludes that, though internet-access is 'approaching a basic human need', it shouldn't be thought of as a human right. To think of it as one, he says, 'confuses people's access to tools and resources with the proper stuff of human rights'.
It isn't a good enough argument. There's nothing wrong, of course, with comparing access to the internet with access to other tools and resources. But some resources matter more than others - food, for example (see Article 25). It is therefore necessary to consider how important a resource the internet has become, to gathering information, communicating easily with others, and so on. It seems to me at least arguable that the apt comparison here is of internet-access with the right to education (Article 26).
Incidentally, even if access to the internet should be regarded as a human right, it wouldn't automatically follow that people mustn't be denied access for certain types of (serious) misuse of their access. It's a standard form of retributive justice to treat certain rights as having been forfeited by those guilty of crimes. (See here and here.)