Tell about the relationship and conflict between these quotes?

Question

"speech is not protected by the First Amendment if it is likely to cause violation of the law more quickly than an officer of the law can be reasonably summoned."

vs

"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."

Would you say that the first abridges the second?

Direct from Merriam-Webster Dictionary...

abridge
1 a archaic : DEPRIVE b : to reduce in scope : DIMINISH

speech
1 a : the communication or expression of thoughts in spoken words b : exchange of spoken words : CONVERSATION
2 a : something that is spoken : UTTERANCE b : a usually public discourse : ADDRESS

Answer 1

The first quote is a limit or "clarification" of the 2nd quote.

You could say it nullifies the 2nd or you could say it simply puts common sense limits, it depends on your personal philosophy.

I think the conflict is obvious, the 2nd is saying free speech in a blanket statement, the 1st seems to be saying that certain speech will not be allowed unless there is an office already present to mitigate the potential damage of the statement. It seems to allow the loophole that the speaker can still say whatever they want as long as officials are there.

So for instance, walking down the street screamin ni**** at all the black people would be illegal b/c of the potential for violence. If police are there monitoring, the KKK can have a parade and scream that word all day long.

Answer 2

The first citation is rather awkwardly stated and is actually merely an opinion, with no force of law, unless stated by a judge or justice. The second is the First Amendment itself.
I think that the first statement is an attempt to say that freedom of speech does not extend to the inciting of crime. In this case, the crime is the actual condideration, not the speech spoken. Freedom of speech does not extend, for instance to someone that urges a murder or a riot. The crime though, is not what is said, but what is done after the speech.