In the ongoing culture wars, no area is more controversial than freedom of expression. In the midst of this controversy, it is tempting to appeal to an ideal version of the First Amendment that stands above ideological conflict. As this Essay shows, however, the amendment has always been subject to competing interpretations that are rooted in differing political, social, and cultural views. It follows that the meaning of the First Amendment can never be wholly removed from ideological conflict. But such conflict should not be unbounded. Instead, a central task of constitutional jurisprudence is to develop a common language or framework within which to debate controversial issues. This Essay argues that such a framework can be found in a rig...