A theory of the First Amendment guarantee of free speech has long teased and tormented students of American jurisprudence. They have been confronted by a dilemma: how can a right be absolute and also be limited? This article argues that philosophical attempts to resolve this dilemma obscure rather than clarify the practical political significance of freedom of speech, because they disengage from politics by treating standards of meaning and significance as more important than ordinary speech and action. The author offers instead a rhetorical approach to the freedom of speech. He argues that analysis should focus on legal reasoning and on how ideological conventions structure arguments about interests and rights in the context of specific cases.