According to Justia Law, “[I]t is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances.” So the right of free speech can be in the abstract, but not all the time. According to Foundation for Economic Education, “Property rights then became the ac knowledged foundation upon which other constitutional freedoms rested, including freedom of speech.” So property rights became the knowledged foundation for which other constitutional freedoms rested, and this includes the freedom of speech. So is there a “right of free speech” in the abstract, or is the question of free speech at root a matter of property rights? There can be a right of free speech in the abstract, but it is rested upon property rights, the knowledged foundation for which other constitutional freedoms rested.

What is the difference between negative rights and positive rights? According to Tom Woods, “Negative rights do not require anything from anyone else except not interfering with you, and positive rights place some obligation on others to bestow certain benefits on you.” An example of negative rights is imagine someone is very sick  and the only cure is on Mars. That man cannot say “Go get it because I have a right to my life”, because negative rights means no one can interfere with him or his life, and a mission to Mars to find the only cure is interfering with that man’s life, so he can’t demand that they go to Mars to get the cure. It does not work that way. According to Saint Clara University, “Positive rights, therefore, are rights that provide something that people need to secure their well being, such as a right to an education, the right to food, the right to medical care, the right to housing, or the right to a job.“