It is not mere about depriving people from their right to free information access, it is an attempt to deprive people from their right to grow up, to improve their lives, to learn how they have been cheated and by whom.
For example, to learn that not just those finance guys, but the whole economic science has no clue about what's going on with the economy, except that it is very broken.)
Something is very wrong because people believe in positive rights. Like the right to information access, to improve lives etc. Because to provide positive rights someone must be coerced to do so. And you end up with a huge government that ceases, distributes and tells you how to live.
Enter negative rights. For instance, a right to protect yourself and your property against aggression. You can't take mine, I can't take yours. Now we do not always need anyone else to resolve any conflict between us. (We may ask a judge for help, but it is not required.)
In this case the problem is not with a right to education. Minnesota state violates negative rights of the educator and a student to do what they want with themselves (provided they do not aggress upon property of others).
If you think in terms of negative rights you will see solution to many difficult problems. But if you continue thinking in terms of positive rights, you will get more arbitrary judgements and more aggression.
Positive rights are necessary because many natural rights have been taken away.
I think, as a human born in the U.S. I have a divine right to erect a structure to sleep in and keep the snow off so I don't die. But that right disappeared long ago.
Since the property-owning class (private and government) took that right away from me, they now have an obligation to provide me some things.
Or would you prefer armed revolution where I take back my right to establish reasonable shelter?
You never had a right to establish any shelter. You have a right to appropriate what's unowned or receive something in voluntary exchange.
Now if you stand on a justly owned property (like my house), then you play by the rules of the owner or go away.
If you stand on unjustly owned property (like a forest protected by the state), then you may use part of it as your own provided you do not alter objective properties of this forest that were enjoyed by everybody prior to you. E.g. if you noticeably alter the air quality by cutting it down, prior users of the air may ask you for compensation.
Also, it's a losing strategy to talk about somebody's obligations. If somebody has robbed you, he must 1) compensate what's stolen 2) be punished. He is not obliged to provide you with social security, free speech and fast internet.
While there is some marginal amount of class mobility, property ownership in the U.S. is correlated almost entirely with privilege. The more white/rich/male/citizen/straight/cis/typical-bodied/neurotypical boxes you can tick, the more likely you are to be a property owner.
The fact that you think Mitt Romney owning property is "just ownership" while the children of, say, a non-citizen Native American who came back across the Mexican border in the 90s to his ancestral lands in San Diego county are "just non-property owners" is absurd.
The conflict is only about the definition of property. When we come to an agreement on what is property and what belongs to whom, the conflict will be over.
It is not mere about depriving people from their right to free information access, it is an attempt to deprive people from their right to grow up, to improve their lives, to learn how they have been cheated and by whom.
For example, to learn that not just those finance guys, but the whole economic science has no clue about what's going on with the economy, except that it is very broken.)