Rights aren't "social constructs" if they're natural rights, that is, those that follow from the nature of what it means to be a human being. Those are recognized, not "constructed". These must be distinguished from those things that are merely asserted as rights and that people like to make up to suit their agendas.

But, given that, natural rights can be violated and fail to be protected from those who would do so. So just because something is natural in nature does not mean it cannot be suppressed. It is natural and proper for human beings to speak, but speech can be suppressed. So yes, a society that stops protecting rights will see more violations of them. Declarations are magic incantations. You need power and authority to back them up.

(Also, w.r.t. freedom of speech, I am here not assuming unrestricted speech and "expression"; this has never existed and cannot exist and so on. Rights are not absolute: you can forfeit even your right to life by murdering another human being, for example. Thus rights must be understood in the context of justice.)

Humanity for the longest time existed without any hint of universal inalienable rights. Calling them that is aspirational. They are not "natural" in any way except being the norm in very recent social reality of certain fortunate parts of the world.

> Rights aren't "social constructs" if they're natural rights, that is, those that follow from the nature of what it means to be a human being.

Are you saying that you have achieved perfect understanding of this? I think that implies a sophistication way beyond were we are as a species today.