 How would one describe Fiss' viewpoints.
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.
 They are out of the ordinary, considering he refutes the current First Amendment.
 They are out of the ordinary, considering he refutes the current First Amendment.  They are condescending when applied across a large spectrum of social groups.  When contemplated, they fit in with the customs and norms of society today.  They are noncontroversial among politically conservative people.