Freedom of speech and the art of argumentation have long held fascination for the American rhetorician. Unfortunately, few rhetoricians have seen fit to analyze the overlap which exists between these two areas of rhetorical study. This dissertation attempts to remedy this predicament. Utilizing the works of Otto Dieter, concerning points of stasis in arguments, and Richard Weaver, concerning types of arguments, the public arguments over the First Amendment issues of flag burning, funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, and the Mapplethorpe trial in Cincinnati were analyzed. The variables used in this analysis consisted of: (1) to which First Amendment issue an argument pertained; (2) whether an argument was pro or anti First Amendment; (3) the point of stasis upon which the argument hinged; and (4) the type of argument used. Chi-squared analysis was run between the variables to determine if differences exist, with special attention given to the differences between anti and pro First Amendment arguments. The findings indicated that the anti free speech side divided their arguments more evenly between the argument types described by Weaver. In addition, when compared to the pro free speech arguments, the anti free speech side utilized more arguments from circumstance and less argument from genus. These findings indicated an overemphasis of the immediate situation and less of a concern for the long term consequences by the anti free speech side. With regard to the points of stasis, both sides were found to rely more heavily on point of stasis, with the finding being stronger on the pro free speech side. It was presumed that this finding was due, not to qualities possessed by proponents of either side, but to situational factors. In addition, when compared against each other, the anti free speech side utilized more points of quality and definition than the pro free speech side.