>The first amendment doesn't give people rights: people already have those rights.
Says who? Prove it. Go to Russia and say something bad about the government and see how well this right you think you magically get holds up.
Regardless of if you agree with the US Constitution's perspective on self-evident rights, your point here does not negate what they said, simply indicates that the Russian government is not constrained in the same way the US government is.
Infringement on a right doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The perspective with which we look at rights vs. privileges matters in a society, so it's not just semantics.
Says the amendment:
"Congress shall make no law...."
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/
Why would an US constitution amendment have any effect in Russia?
Russia is completely irrelevant to the argument I presented. As a separate point, Russia is also a shithole which I refuse spending time thinking about.
But I can see how this argument would make sense in the retarded mind of a lawyer. The first amendment doesn't give people rights: people already have those rights. Instead, the first amendment constrains the power of the US government to infringe upon those rights. It doesn't constrain the power of any other government.