the Constitution doesn't guarantee that government won't abridge the freedom of the press. It says that “Congress will make no law”. Tain't the same thing.

That's certainly true as far as it goes. A couple hundred years of jurisprudence, though, he stretched it well beyond that, mostly by the Incorporation Doctrine via the 14th Amendment. That's why, for example, local school principals or county school board's can't command sectarian prayers be conducted.

Obviously, judges aren't going to constrain themselves by similar rulings. But we've created a very expansive view of the 1st Amendment that only judges seem able to disregard willy nilly.

How is this different from "Judge orders Kiefer Sutherland to do community service or go to jail"?

There isn't a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing that government won't interfere in community service.

But, actually, I don't think judges should have the power to order community service absent conviction for a crime.

Note, too, the wording of the First Amendment:

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.

There is no proscription on the court's powers to limit freedom of the press when it acts in equity in that amendment.