[neuralk]

>Freedom of speech is a right provided by the constitution

No, it is not. It explicitly is not. Freedom of speech is one right among many other unstated rights held in common by the people. The first amendment merely prohibits Congress from passing a law that restricts it. The wording is clear that this freedom is something that exists inherently beyond the scope of the Constitution, and is certainly not "provided" by the document. We naturally have rights such as freedom of speech. It is from institutions like the government that restrictions are placed on them.

Also, the 9th amendment was included precisely to clarify and codify the fact that the Constitution, in enumerating the rights, is not itself granting those rights or even stating that these are the only rights people have.

[tptacek]

The 9th Amendment does not mean that Twitter must allow your speech. In fact, at the time the 9th Amendment was drafted, it didn't even require the states to grant you a right to free expression; that right wasn't incorporated onto the states until Reconstruction.

So, no, not so much.

[dragonwriter]

> that right wasn't incorporated onto the states until Reconstruction.

Much later, actually; while the Supreme Court grounded incorporation in the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment, which was part of Reconstruction, the doctrine of incorporation was articulated and developed in the 20th Century, starting, IIRC, with Gitlow v. New York in 1925.

[dragonwriter]

> Not it is not. It explicitly is not.

Yes, it is. The idea of the authors (and those ratifying the amendment) that a moral right to freedom of speech exists independently may be (all or part of) the reason the Constitution expressly provides and protects the legal right to freedom of speech, by the legal right is provided by the Constitution.