Is free speech conditional?

"If you didn't vote then you can't complain."
Translates to:
"If you didn't participate in mob rule then you lose free speech."

When did not voting ever equate to treason and or result in losing the right to free speech?

There are two different kinds of rights, negative, and positive. Positive rights are more akin to privilege. A positive right is when you are granted an advantage and or when you are legally entitled to benefit from something. Positive rights create positive obligations for other people, meaning that they are required to do something in order for your “right” to be fulfilled. Nobody has the inherent right to create obligatory actions for other people, which means that positive rights are illegitimate and or immoral. To claim something that creates a positive obligation to another individual or group of people as a right, like healthcare and or education, is to claim that those people have a positive obligation to you, and that they are to either pay for, and or provide those services to you for free. You are not entitled to the labor of other individuals for “free”. You are not a slave master.

Negative rights are inherent entitlements to perform certain actions unobstructed that don't result in any detriment to person or property. Negative rights only create negative obligations for other people. A negative obligation is an obligation to *not do something, like stealing from me. All people have a negative obligation to respect each other's non-consent. If somebody violates your non-consent by stealing from you, or using violence on you, then they have violated an inherent right of yours and you are morally justified to defend yourself. Negative rights include the right to defend yourself, the right to free thought, the right to free speech, the right to first use, etc. An example of a negative obligation had by each self-owner towards every other innocent self-owner would be the obligation to not initiate violent force on them.

I didn't realise that my right to free speech was dependent upon my participation in the process of a presidential election, or voting for certain bills. I was under the impression that my right to freely speak was inherent, and that I was born with it. If somebody refuses to participate in mob rule as a way to subjugate people to their will, then they somehow lose their ability to freely speak? Voting is not an inherent and or negative right, so how can somebody not using a privilege that contrives positive obligations for other people result in them losing a permanent right that they were born with? Who should and or will silence them, and how? When is it okay to silence somebody because they haven't performed a certain action? When it hurts your feelings?

Let me see if I am following, If somebody doesn't try to use a deceitful proxy that violates the non-consent of other people via voting for their preference, then they should lose the ability to talk about their non-consent that is being violated as a result of the voting that took place that they didn't even consent to in the first place?

I learned about the election process in 3rd or 4th grade, it turns out that the popular vote doesn't even choose the candidates, delegates do that. Out of everyone who votes in the democratic primary (millions and millions of people) there are 4,047 delegates who actually vote for the candidate that will be nominated to run for president. 794 of these delegates are deemed super-delegates, and they don't have to vote along the lines of what the people (you) say they want. Your voice isn't even pretended to be considered until after the candidates have been drafted by a selected few delegates, and then it's ignored and or superseded by super delegates during the process that gives you the illusion of participating in electing your next master; but you knew that, because you're smarter than a 5th grader...

Voters are cowards who do not have the courage to act on behalf of their convictions and commit the acts of violence they themselves endorse while voting; they must employ a proxy. Every time you vote for a new law that isn't to protect somebody from actual crime, you are voting to create a positive obligation for somebody and that they should be punished if they do not do it. If you vote for "free" healthcare, then you're voting for people to be stolen from to fund your welfare. Voters also lack the awareness of their actions. The very fact that they are begging their masters via mob rule for the plantation's rules to change, escapes them entirely. The fact that their voting for their own oppression, escapes them entirely.

Remember, the largest minority in the world is the individual, and respecting an individual's rights should always be priority.

Don't Vote = Lose Free Speech?

Is free speech conditional?