 Which statement about details within the article is NOT true.
The subject of this short book is the present direction of the law governing the freedom of speech. The short way to put his argument (though it is not quite the way he puts it) is to say that our approach to speech has become increasingly permissive. This is what Fiss means by the "irony" in his title: that true freedom of speech for all requires suppressing the speech of some. This is not, technically, an irony. It is a paradox. An irony would be the observation that an attempt to increase freedom for all often entails, despite our best efforts, a decrease in freedom for a few. 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.
 Nearly all Americans today would agree with Fiss' rationale.
 Fiss would support a minority movement before a movement from people in a "majority" social group.  Despite his bitterness towards contemporary liberals, Fiss' ideologies are uniquely liberal in themselves.  Nearly all Americans today would agree with Fiss' rationale.  Fiss believes that inequality is a major contemporary issue.