To the former, I believe you are correct; to the latter, as you stated, there are many laws which restrict the right to take photographs. AFAIK, photography is covered under your constitution's first amendment, but it doesn't specifically cite photography as a form of speech which is protected, so is it not a case of it being protected by precedent rather than it being a right?
It's the same thing.
Rights are protected or regulated or restricted by law, either statutory laws or common laws (i.e. case law, precedent.) It doesn't have to enumerate all the forms of communication that is considered 'speech' in order to protect the right of speech. It only mentions something when the amendments or laws need interpretation. In other words, not everything has to be a positive right explicitely listed in order to be considered a 'right.'
Can you cite references? I'm very curious about this. Our legal systems are very similar, and this would be a rather glaring difference. Here a right is something specifically enumerated in law, the constitution or one of a couple of other select documents.
Fundamental Rights
"To prevent abuses that threaten the entire civilization, to create happiness for all people, and to prevent great unjustified suffering,
all fundamental rights are granted to all people in every civilized society. The italicized statement is also the meaning of the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution: The amendment grants all fundamental rights not already granted in other parts of the Constitution. Moreover, each right is a liberty since it prevents certain restrictions on one's state of body or environment; liberty cannot be denied without "due process of law" (Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments); and there is no due (proper) process of law to deny fundamental rights since denying such rights is inherently improper since fundamental rights are those rights whose protection is essential for the society. Liberty is the ability to do whatever one wants; thus, all restrictions are deprivations of liberty; however, some restrictions are proper and thus with due process of law. Freedom to control other people is a liberty since the right to achieve what one wants (or even merely freedom from bodily restraint) is meaningless without some control over other people. This document describes, explains, and justifies human rights and their protection by the United States Constitution."
The Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Some further explanation of various interpretations of the 9th:
The 9th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
"During the ratification debates over the Constitution, some opponents of ratification (“Anti-Federalists”) vociferously complained about the absence of a bill of rights. In response, supporters of the Constitution (“Federalists”) such as James Wilson argued that a bill of rights would be dangerous. Enumerating any rights, Wilson argued, might imply that all those not listed were surrendered.
And, because it was impossible to enumerate all the rights of the people, a bill of rights might actually be construed to justify the government’s power to limit any liberties of the people that were not enumerated. [Emphasis mine.] Nevertheless, because the Anti-Federalist demand for a bill of rights resonated with the public, Federalists like James Madison countered with a pledge to offer amendments after the Constitution’s ratification. "
