what are Rights if not individual liberties?
I have read the original bills of rights of the original States and they make declarations that do not seem to be individual liberties, but rather they seem to be declarations of principles of, or limits upon, the government being framed. I understand this to be a "
political right" - a principle that is "right" according to a particular system of government.
If I had to make a bill of individual liberties, I might declare things like the right to an opportunity to provide for myself, a right to marry, a right to have children ... a bill of rights doesn't declare these things.
On the other hand, if I had to make a bill of principles of free government, I might declare that free government is empowered by the people, that it is for the good of the whole, that the government should have separate branches, that the legislature should be freely elected, that the legislatures should be able to speak freely, that the people have a right to peaceably assemble and to petition for a redress of grievances, that there should be no standing army in times of peace ... and bills of rights do in fact declare these things.
I must have listed a dozen declarations from the original bills of rights from the original States, saying things like "government should have separate branches". And I am asked "what are rights if not individual liberties". They are principles of, or limits upon, government - not personal/natural/individual rights, but
political rights, principles which are "right" according to the form of government being framed. A Constitution frames a government, and a bill of rights declares principles of, or limits upon, that government.
what is the practical difference that you're positing between these two statements -
"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech."
and
"There is an individual right to free speech."
In the federal context ... the first statement conforms with my understanding of constitutionalism and federalism, because it attempts to limit only the government which is framed by the Constitution in question i.e. a constitution frames a government and a bill of rights limits that government ... the second statement would likely be interpreted to mean "no State shall infringe on the right to free speech, and the US Congress shall have power to enforce this provision" ... that would not conform with my understanding of constitutionalism or federalism because (1) the constitution would frame one government and then the bill of rights would be limiting other governments with their own constitutions and their own bills of rights, and (2) I do not believe that a limited federal government can protect our personal rights because that would turn it into a national government. Basically, your first statement clearly is intended to limit congress, while the second statement might easily be construed so as to further empower congress.
Are you saying that although Congress is prohibited from abridging free speech, that there is no individual right to free speech guaranteed in the Bill of Rights?
Free speech is a great example. I see it as regarding a principle of, or limit upon, free government. Consider these early declarations of the right to free speech:
"That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament" - 1689 English BOR
"Freedom of speech and debate in Congress shall not be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Congress, and the members of Congress shall be protected in their persons from arrests or imprisonments, during the time of their going to and from, and attendence on Congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace." - Articles of Confederation
"That freedom of speech and debates, or proceedings in the Legislature, ought not to be impeached in any other court or judicature." - 1776 Maryland Bill of Rights
And a couple of States declared it as a personal right:
"That the people have a right to freedom of speech, and of writing, and publishing their sentiments; therefore the freedom of the press ought not to be restrained." - Pennsylvania/Vermont Constitutions (1776/1777)
It seems to me that these things begin in response to despotism, like representatives being threatened with arrest, and the declaration that representatives shall have a right to speak freely ... and then they devolve into the libertarian idea of individual free speech ... today most people think the right to free speech has to do with yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater, but that doesn't seem to be a principle of free government, and so we seem to have lost the vision.
But anyway, to answer your question, yes, although Congress is prohibited from abridging free speech, there is no individual right to free speech guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. That is a 14th "Amendment" vision ... but the original amendments i.e. the Bill of Rights did not empower the US to be the protector of our personal right to free speech, it limited Congress, but did not limit the States or the people so it did not protect our right
except against Congress.