First amendment is given to us by our creators it says so in the us constution everyone gets it period

Neither the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or any of its other amendments use the word “creator”. You’re probably thinking of the Declaration of Independence (the famous second sentence of which is “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”). The DoI predates the Constitution and its amendments by over a decade and has no force of law.

There is a strong legal argument to be made, including some historical court rulings, that at least some of the rights in the Bill of Rights do apply to non-citizens - although some of those arguments are limited to when non-citizens are on US soil (which Assange was not when he engaged in the acts of journalism which he is being prosecuted for).

However, one of the US prosecutors (Gordon Kromberg) specifically told the court in his declaration in support of the Assange extradition:

Concerning any First Amendment challenge, the United States could argue that foreign nationals are not entitled to protections under the First Amendment […]

Former Secretary of State and CIA Director Mike Pompeo also wrote in his memoir Never Give An Inch:

Julian Assange has no First Amendment privileges. He is not a U.S. citizen.

Other US officials have made similar statements.

You can read more here:

• https://thedissenter.org/countdown-to-day-x-us-assange-no-first-amendment-rights/
• https://www.jurist.org/features/2023/08/21/law-professor-marjorie-cohn-extradition-of-julian-assange-threatens-first-amendment-and-freedom-of-press/

Last month, the British High Court gave the US prosecutors until April 16 to submit a declaration including assurances that “the applicant is permitted to rely on the first amendment” and that he “is afforded the same first amendment protections as a United States citizen” (those are the British court’s words).

The assurance the US has now submitted did not actually repudiate the prosecutors earlier explicit statement that the “the United States could argue that foreign nationals are not entitled to protections under the First Amendment” but instead said merely that he can “seek to raise” the first amendment in his defense. But, he has already been seeking to raise the first amendment to stop his extradition, and these “assurances” that he can seek to raise it again in the US come from the same prosecutors who explicitly argued (and again, have not repudiated their argument) to the British court that he is not entitled to first amendment protection because he is a foreign national.

You didn’t answer my question: Better off than what?