Government is merely a set of people. These people don't give you your rights any more than some random person on the street gives you your rights. Both merely either respect them or not.
America, in spite of its contradictions, was to a significant extent based on the idea of "inalienable rights", and is why it was so successful. The verbiage in The Bill of Rights was intended to recognize, not confer rights, and it was intended to restrain government from violating them.
Exactly. Political theorists routinely distinguish between natural rights and legal rights.
Legal rights are conferred by law, and would not exist if not for law. The right to run for President is a legal right, because the office of the President would not have existed if not for the U.S. Constitution.
Natural rights, on the other hand, exist regardless of law. Nobody is supposed to rape you, not only because the law says so, but also because you have a right to decide who you have sex with. If the law does not prosecute rapists, the law is wrong, and you still have the right.
The U.S. Constitution is remarkable not only because it created (legal) rights that didn't exist before, but also because it finally recognized so many (natural) rights that used to be blatantly ignored by despots.
Of course, whether "freedom of information" is a natural right or a legal right is a contentious matter. Most likely, it has components of both.
This is historical revisionism. "Inalienable rights" made for some great rhetoric in the Declaration of Independence, but the Constitution does not use the phrase (and uses the phrase "right" only a couple of times in the main articles).
Government is a set of people, and rights arise from consensus and practice among those people. When the Founders spoke about "rights" they were referring to those recognized by British consensus and practice.
That's why there was a great initial push after the Constitution was ratified to establish the Bill of Rights. People didn't feel that it was safe enough to leave things like the freedom of speech to be covered under common/unwritten law. So some of the unwritten/understood parts of the Constitution were written into the first 10 amendments.
There was also great initial resistance, not because the opponents didn't want to safeguard rights; but because they feared enumerating some rights for named protection would leave other rights not named unprotected.
And if Hamilton could print out this discussion page, he'd be shoving it in people's faces and pounding his fist on the table furiously. "See? I told you so!"
If my exercise of my rights is restricted then it hardly matters how much respect or recognition I find in some verbiage - in practical terms, I am denied those rights.
This is unfortunately common, so that most freedoms cannot actually be realized without the help of law and the judicious use of institutional force, far beyond what I or almost any citizen can personally wield. And it is not even vaguely exceptional that the source of the problem is coming from non-governmental entities.
Law is much more than "a set of people."
I think it's fairly clear that the Constitution is also intended to restrain non-Governmental entities from violating personal rights. Otherwise, the 13th Amendment would only make Government slavery unconstitutional while reserving it to the states or the people, which would be nonsensical and useless.
The rights of plantation slaves have surely existed all along, but they didn't make any difference until a lot of blood was spilled to change things.
I think it's fairly clear that the Constitution is also intended to restrain non-Governmental entities from violating personal rights
That's question-begging a bit. If I hire you for my radio show and you say something stupid on the air, am I not allowed to fire you, lest that be a violation of your personal right to free speech? If I refuse to sell you a gun, am I denying you your right to bear arms?
Otherwise, the 13th Amendment would only make Government slavery unconstitutional while reserving it to the states or the people, which would be nonsensical and useless.
That seems to argue against point. If the whole Constitution was meant to restrict non-governmental actors, then they wouldn't have limited it just to slavery.
Also, the Fourteenth Amendment generally applies the restrictions on the Federal government to State governments. I'm unaware of any restrictions it places on non-goverments.
America, in spite of its contradictions, was to a significant extent based on the idea of "inalienable rights", and is why it was so successful. The verbiage in The Bill of Rights was intended to recognize, not confer rights, and it was intended to restrain government from violating them.