 Would Fiss believe that free speech is really "free?"
The subject of this short book is the present direction of the law governing the freedom of speech. 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. The Irony of Free Speech is a discussion of several speech issues: campaign-finance laws, state funding for the arts, pornography, speech codes, and equal time. Fiss' analyses of specific cases are presented against a lightly sketched historical argument. The constitutional law of free speech, says Fiss, was shaped by the earlier type of liberalism--he calls it "libertarian"--which regarded free speech as a right of individual self-expression; it is now used to foil efforts to regulate speech in the name of the newer liberal value, equality.
 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 No, because he believes free speech is an outdated concept.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.