 What best summarizes Fiss' main motive as discussed in the article?
What Professor Fiss has to say about it is worth attending to not merely because of his prominence in the field but because his argument is planted in the common assumptive ground of a lot of contemporary academic thought about the bankruptcy of individualism. This is what Fiss means by the "irony" in his title: that true freedom of speech for all requires suppressing the speech of some. Fiss does not avoid it. Fiss' analyses of specific cases are presented against a lightly sketched historical argument.
 He wants to highlight problems with free speech.
 He wants to problematize the U.S. constitution and its values.  He wants to build animosity against contemporary liberals.  He wants to highlight problems with free speech.  He wants to teach minority and underrepresented groups how to gain true free speech for themselves.