>Why doesn't my ISP's right to block access to parts of the Web end where my right to consume information begins?
For the same reason that a restaurant refusing service to you is not a violation of your right to food. You can still consume information without a contract under a specific ISP.
>Why do we place more importance on the 'rights' of an abstract non-living corporation above the rights of actual citizens?
We don't. The rights that protect corporations are actually protecting the people involved with and interacting with that corporation. Rights don't only exist exclusively for individuals, they can be expressed by groups and protect people in aggregate. The freedom of religion, for instance, would be meaningless if it only applied to the "abstract, non-living" concept of "religion," or could only be exercised by individuals, and not religious organizations.
For the same reason that a restaurant refusing service to you is not a violation of your right to food. You can still consume information without a contract under a specific ISP.
>Why do we place more importance on the 'rights' of an abstract non-living corporation above the rights of actual citizens?
We don't. The rights that protect corporations are actually protecting the people involved with and interacting with that corporation. Rights don't only exist exclusively for individuals, they can be expressed by groups and protect people in aggregate. The freedom of religion, for instance, would be meaningless if it only applied to the "abstract, non-living" concept of "religion," or could only be exercised by individuals, and not religious organizations.