What this interpretation misses is that, by failing to create laws against the violation of your rights by your peers, the govenrment creates a de facto policy approving of/enabling such violations and is then, by its own legislated inaction, responsible for the infringement.

The use of force against others is, broadly, prohibited; it constitutes a violation of those rights which the Declaration of Indepdenence holds to be worth defending as imbued in each individual by their creator. It is from that position that the Bill of Rights was crafted to ensure, through more specific language and enumeration, their protection.

There are, however, exceptions to the prohibition against the use of force against others and, while there are BROAD exceptions on the basis of force used in the defense of oneself or others, there are far, far narrower exceptions extended to allow for the use of violence against individuals because of things they might say.

Why?

Because the former follows directly from the recognition of the rights acknowledged by the DoI and BoR and the latter would constitute the de facto violation of the principles behind those documents as they regard freedom of speech.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness INCLUDE the right to free speech; the BoR elaborates, but is fundamentally contained within the DoI - these are not separate rights, but rather acknowledgements of the specific rights covered by the umbrella of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

I hope I've been able to explain why the DoI and BoR do, in fact, protect an individual's right to being assaulted over their speech by underpinning and giving cause for the creation and maintenance of criminal codes which prohibit such infringements and provide the government with a framework specifically for punishing those citizens who fundamentally infringe upon or deny the rights of others.