abridging

Abridging the rights of a small number is still abridging rights.

It's only one sentence, and very blunt: >Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...

If it's corruption, its Constitutionally protected, in the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law [respecting/or abridging] the right of the people...

Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the [...] right of the people [...] to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

S., if there is a compelling necessity to achieve an important governmental or societal goal, a law abridging freedom of speech may pass muster.

That shouldn't be the case -- if a human being has a impaired intellectual capacity, or no social relationships, that's not grounds for abridging their rights.

Constitutional protection of that freedom only applies to the government, but that doesn't mean another entity taking the same actions isn't also abridging your freedom of speech, even in the US — it's just that the Bill of Rights was focused on limiting the government's power, not any other entity's, so it only prevents the government from abridging your freedom of speech.

In my mind the modern argument should be more about the effectiveness of abridging civil liberties than about the temporary nature of the threat (which was one of the central points of Franklin's quote).

The First Amendment to the US Constitution says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If you fix it, it would read "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech".

You're missing the other part: "abridging the freedom of speech." Why use a noun phrase here?

The same amendment goes on to add "or abridging the freedom of speech".

Thank you or abridging "sex" from the title.