 Would Fiss believe that free speech is really "free?"
This is what Fiss means by the "irony" in his title: that true freedom of speech for all requires suppressing the speech of some. But he has, instead, chosen to address the issue as an advocate for specific groups he regards as politically disadvantaged--women, gays, victims of racial-hate speech, the poor (or, at least, the not-rich), and people who are critical of market capitalism--and to design a constitutional theory that will enable those groups to enlist the state in efforts either to suppress speech they dislike or to subsidize speech they do like, without running afoul of the First Amendment. Fiss does not avoid it.
 No, because Fiss believes free speech is not granted equally to everyone.
 No, because he believes free speech is an outdated concept.  Yes, but he does propose minor critiques towards the concept of free speech.  No, because Fiss believes free speech is not granted equally to everyone.  Yes, because he has not advocated strongly against issues with free speech.