Abridgement used in a sentence

Abridgement in a sentence as a noun

"Censorship" is an abridgement of freedom of speech.

Not to mention the abridgement of civil rights that has already happened, and would continue to happen.

The second is an abridgement of human rights on a mass scale, something to be ashamed of, and something to shame others for doing.

My sending you money to change the way you speak is not an abridgement of your freedom of speech, because accepting it is purely voluntary.

In many respects it already does so; but productivity tools are noticeable by their absence or abridgement.

Not all child sexual abuse is done with the intent of creating pornography, but even so it doesn't make child pornography bans any less of an abridgement of free speech.

Crypto-racism from the left is a problem, but in fairness the legacy of slavery and civil rights abridgement is much more recent here in the US than it is in European countries.

Imposing these requirements on non-commercial, civil-society websites would be a serious abridgement of freedom of speech.

Are there any people who have been prevented from visiting friends, or prosecuted for doing so?I mean, I'm seeing a whole lot of screaming about Freedom here and very little evidence of any such abridgement.

A blanket abridgement probably isn't reasonable, especially when many businesses remain open with appropriate safeguards in place.

I am not particularly concerned about the absolute rights of pedophiles, but I am concerned by what I perceive to be the abridgement of the rights of innocents for the purpose of pursuing the distasteful elements of society.

You might as easily argue that Obama's warning that anyone with a felony conviction will be deported amounts to a abridgement of the due process that Congress provided for - having a felony conviction already makes deportation more likely, but avenues for appeal do exist.

I'm trying to pre-emptively address the populist arguments which are often articulated here in which only the BoR is given the time of day.'Secur[ing] the Blessings of Liberty' is certainly a key constitutional imperative, but so is 'provid[ing] for the common defence'; failure of the latter arguably results in a de facto abridgement of the former.

Do you not feel that this would constitute an abridgement of the rights of the people behind reddit and Google to help inform the public about the nature of these bills?If a group of individuals can join together and form a corporation to publish a book on almost any subject, but are specially prohibited from publishing a book endorsing or opposing a candidate or bill, then it seems to me that such a prohibition would clearly be an unlawful violation of the First Amendment, because it discriminates against certain speech based on the content of that speech.