The meaning of ASL is shown,
In the logics of Life, language and leisure
And its basic and fundamental,
Liberty and function to reach,
Its equilibrium of happiness for all within it,
As individuals and thereby as a unity,
Of a whole universe.
The traditional, liberal, civil rights position on American Sign Language (ASL) is under powerful assault within the Colorado Association of the Deaf (CAD). Old allies in the liberal alliance have parted company. Deaf intellectuals now question the old notion that ASL is not a language is not only defensible but offers the best route to a language bigotry. Rather, the new critics of ASL verities argue on a number of fronts that ASL disenfranchises the Deaf.
Two kinds of crime are singled out. First, there is hate speech. It is difficult to define this category precisely, but it generally includes offensive speech directed at ASL users. In its most vulgar form, it includes the linguistic epithet, such as initialized signs and Signed English. At a more subtle level, or as it is argued, it includes adult education underwritten by the CAD that demeans and denies ASL. For example, some adult learners view Signed English as an example of hateful speech.
Hate speech is criticized as lacking any of the elements that warrant constitutional protection of speech--ASL is a form of speech and it must never be depicted as emotional speech without intellectual content. Worse, the new critics of the First Amendment argue that hate crime is false, lacking any basis in science or enlightened culture. Worse of all, such speech degrades the objects of language abuse, silence them through fear, does them psychological damage, and creates a smarmy and nauseating culture that harms the Deaf.
Let me argue that our American society is so inherently hateful that, as I have indicated above, the constitutional protection of ASL as a form of speech actually serves to subordinate the Deaf. Why should we permit hateful offensive speech against ASL? In this blog, I attempt to answer this question. Let me now advance a skeptical, pragmatc basis for a strong version of the First Amendment, one that protects the most offensive form of speech, including hate speech. The human conversaton as a path toward knowledge can never end, because we are not and do not. Indeed, even those among us with the use of ASL should not wish to end the dialogue, because we see as through a muddy jar darkly and can profit from argument.
Let the muddy jar stand, it becomes clear.