 Which groups does Fiss claim his book is advocating for?
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. If Fiss had addressed the subject of free speech in this spirit, as an irony, he would undoubtedly have had some interesting things to say, for he is a learned and temperate writer. 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. These discussions are not doctrinaire, but their general inclination is to favor state intervention, on political grounds, in each of those areas--that is, to favor restrictions on campaign spending, greater regulation of pornography, and so on. Fiss' analyses of specific cases are presented against a lightly sketched historical argument.
 women, gays, victims of racial-hate
speech, the poor, and those who are critical of market capitalism
 women, gays, victims of war crimes , the poor, and people who are critical of
market capitalism  women, gays, victims of racial-hate
speech, the rich, and people who are critical of
market capitalism.  women, gays, victims of racial-hate
speech, the poor, and those who are critical of market capitalism  women, gays, victims of racial-hate
speech, the poor, and people who are critical of communism.