The question is not the definition of "abridge" but the definition of the word "speech." In the 18th Century, speech meant oral communication. It is only by interpretation that we equate "speech" with the broader "communication in any form."
NittanyLion:Do you see anything in the Second Amendment about semiautomatic weapons?
"Arms" is very inclusive. Frankly, I'd say that term includes all armament. No redefinition of the word is necessary. If they had used the word "muskets" instead your point would be valid.
NittanyLion:The First Amendment guarantees the right to speak by whatever media is available to the speaker, so long as it doesn't result in the proverbial fist hitting a person's nose.
No. The 1st Amendment guarantees the freedom of speech. It neither mentions other "media" nor does it limit inflammatory language. All the rest you mention is interpretation. Now I see nothing wrong with courts legitimately interpreting the Constitution. I posted this in response to El Gato's contention that the Constitution's plain language should be followed with no court interpretation. You can't have it both ways. Either the courts are empowered to make reasonable interpretations of the meaning of the Constitution, or we stick with the plain 18th Century language as written.
El Gato: The Constitution says what it says, and means what it meant when passed, or when amended as applicable. The Constitution alone is the standard, not what some politicians or political appointees say about it. It's not as if it is some big theoretical exposition, written in impenetrable legalese. It's not, it's written in clear standard(for the late 18th century) English. Very little of it is at all ambiguous.
No interpretation necssary. The plain language of the Constitution is still pretty darn contemporary. We aren't translating this stuff from Latin.
Absent a specific limitation of a medium, the only valid conclusion is that all media are allowed. No interpretation necessary.