Sending a packet is free speech. Being prevented from sending a packet is censorship. It's pretty simple. Not really sure why we needed to take a detour into shooting people, but here we are.

>Sending a packet is free speech.

No, there's no law anywhere that includes actions performed by machines in the definition of free speech. DDoSing a server is not performance art, and neither is shooting someone.

I guess that makes sense if you think people's free speech is granted by laws. I think it's a natural right enshrined/protected by laws.

There's no such thing as a natural right. A right only exists where it goes unchallenged or where there's a force to answer such challenges. That force can come from laws and the power of a state or it can come from someplace else, but it needs to come from somewhere. You can believe that you have the right to send any packets you like however you like, but if you can't defend that right and you don't have anyone who will defend it for you, you may find there are those who will ensure your belief stays as just that.

Sorry, but I don't need someone to try to convince me that I have less rights than I do.

Okay, then I recommend you to go on DDoSing campaigns and see how it goes. Maybe you really do have that right, I don't know.