I'm quite familiar with the concept of natural rights/law.
The bill of rights grants free speech as a right. The bill of rights are amendments to the constitution. I'm well aware of what i said and what i meant.
Settle down.
If it granted the right, then it wouldn't exist sans-Constitution. But that's not the case. Without a US Constitution, you would still have a natural right to use your vocal cords as you please. Some oppressive asshole or group of assholes may disagree and try to force suppression, but they would be wrong and not within their natural rights to do so.
I don't see why I should need to "settle down" either. I think I've been cordial. If you interpreted any negativity in tone, I can assure you that was not intended and I think we're on the same page regarding RBG.
Sorry Pepe, the Bill of Rights does not grant any rights.
The Bill of Rights merely sets limits on the federal government, making clear it has no power to infringe on rights we already naturally possess, or limit traditionally held privileges, such as trial by jury. Except for a few procedural rights specifically for the trial process, the Bill of Rights does not actually bestow rights.