HERE IS A METHOD TO STOP HATE SPEECHES

 JudgeGPT :  Thou Shall Not Hate

 

 

Of late, Election Campaign  Speeches in Karnataka have gotten ugly. This made me engage into a ( friendly ) debate with ChatGPT as follows :

 

 

My Poser to ChatGPT :

 

Yesterday, the Supreme Court of India issued a directive to all the State Governments to take SUO MOTO cognizance of " hate speeches " being delivered by politicians during the current on-going election campaign in Karnataka .

 

Without waiting for someone to file a complaint in this regard, Supreme Court directed the Police Department ( of the State where such speech was delivered ) to take " appropriate " action.

 

I believe this directive will be difficult to implement , since Police Departments of different States are quite likely to define " hate " and " speech " and " appropriate action " , differently .

 

In your knowledge, are there universally agreed upon " definitions " of these words ?

 

What problems do you see arising out of such broad / vague , instructions ?

 

If you were to be the Chief Justice of India, how would you have worded your instructions / guidance / directive ?

If sharply worded / unambiguous " instructions " are not possible then what other " constraining " method to reduce / eliminate, " hate speeches " would you recommend ?

 

hemen parekh / 29 April 2023

 

 

 

 

ChatGPT replied :

 

Here are 4 possible questions based on the given context:

1.  Are there universally agreed upon definitions of the terms "hate speech" and "appropriate action"?

 

2.  What problems do you anticipate with implementing the Supreme Court's directive on hate speeches during election campaigns?

 

3.  How would you, as the Chief Justice of India, have worded the directive to address hate speeches during election campaigns?

 

4.  If sharp and unambiguous instructions are not possible, what other methods would you recommend to reduce or eliminate hate speeches during election campaigns?

And here are possible answers:

1.  While there are some international conventions and guidelines on defining hate speech, the definitions may vary between countries or even within different regions of the same country. Similarly, the term "appropriate action" could be interpreted differently depending on the context and the local laws. Therefore, it might be challenging to achieve a universal agreement on these terms.

 

2.  One of the main challenges with implementing the directive is the variation in interpretation and enforcement across different state police departments. Without a clear and common understanding of what constitutes hate speech and what action is deemed appropriate, there might be inconsistencies in identifying and punishing offenders. Additionally, political interference or reluctance from law enforcement agencies to take action against influential politicians might hinder the effectiveness of the directive.

 

 

3.  As the Chief Justice of India, I would provide a detailed and specific definition of hate speech and the appropriate action to be taken by the police department. This could include examples of hate speech, a clear outline of the consequences for offenders, and guidelines for enforcing the directive consistently across all states. Furthermore, I would also ensure that there are mechanisms in place for monitoring and reporting instances of hate speech, and for providing adequate protection to whistleblowers and complainants.

 

4.  Other methods that could be used to reduce or eliminate hate speeches during election campaigns include:

 

 

·         Education and awareness campaigns to sensitize politicians and voters to the impact of hate speech on social harmony and democratic values.

 

·         Stronger regulations on political campaigns, including stricter rules on campaign finance, media coverage, and candidate eligibility criteria.

 

·         Increased accountability of political parties and their leaders for the behavior of their supporters and candidates.

 

·         Empowering civil society organizations, independent media, and citizen groups to monitor and report instances of hate speech and hold politicians accountable for their actions.

 

·         Encouraging political leaders to adopt a more inclusive and respectful approach to campaigning, focused on issues and policies rather than personal attacks or divisive rhetoric.

 

·          

 

 

I shot back to ChatGPT :

 

For the Presidential Election in 2024 , even in USA , election campaigns by both, the Republicans and the Democrats, are hotting up.

In as far as the " Election Speeches " being made is considered, have you observed any marked difference between the speeches being made by the American Politicians and the Indian politicians ?

 

If yes, then what ?

 

Are American political parties strictly observing any " self-imposed " code of conduct in respect of attacking the opponents ?

You are also well-versed with the current USA laws in respect of " hate speeches " - and with the past court verdicts in this matter.

 

If you were the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of USA, what kind of specific directive would you issue to FBI or to the Federal Police, if any USA politicians are found to be violating any guidelines / code of conduct / US laws ?

 

 

 

 

ChatGPT responded :

 

As an AI language model, I do not have personal observations or opinions, but I can provide general information on the topics you raised.

Regarding the differences between American and Indian election speeches, it is challenging to make a direct comparison as the cultural, political, and social contexts in both countries are different.

However, in general, American political parties tend to use more polished and rehearsed speeches and focus on issues and policies, whereas Indian politicians may rely more on emotional appeals and rhetoric.

Still, this is a generalization, and there are exceptions in both cases.

Both American political parties have a self-imposed code of conduct that guides their campaigns, but there have been instances where candidates from both parties have engaged in negative campaigning and attacking their opponents.

The US has laws that prohibit hate speech, and the courts have issued verdicts on this matter.

However, there is still some ambiguity in defining hate speech, and there are on-going debates about the limits of free speech and hate speech.

If I were the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the US, I would issue a directive to the FBI or Federal Police to investigate any alleged violations of guidelines, codes of conduct, or US laws by politicians during their campaigns.

I would also emphasize the importance of upholding the principles of free and fair elections and encourage political parties to engage in constructive and respectful campaigning that focuses on issues and policies rather than personal attacks.

 

 

 

 

Dear Shri Kiren Rijijuji,

 

 

 

I urge you to convene an All Party Meeting – along with the representatives from the Election Commission , to discuss the Supreme Court directive and quickly evolve a CODE  OF  CONDUCT , to govern the speeches made during Election Campaigns

 

 

 

Why is this important ?

 

Ø It shows up the ugly underbelly of a DEMOCRATIC FOUNDATION PROCESS called Election

 

Ø It lowers our MORAL FABRIC

 

Ø It spills over not only into Parliament Debates but also into our entire Public Institutions

 

 

 

Why is this Urgent ?

 

Ø Because , in 2023 we have 9 State Elections and in 2024, besides General Elections, we also have 7 State Elections

 

Preplanning - How to go about ?

 

Ø First launch an Online Poll among citizen re which words they consider as denoting “ hate ”

Ø This starting list could be what Lok Sabha Speaker considers as “ Un-parliamentary “ words

Ø Online poll- takers should be allowed to “ propose “ other words ( with minimum 1000 supporters )

 

Process - How to “ monitor / control / punish “ the offenders ?

 

Ø All election-campaign speeches must be monitored through Video-Audio recording

 

Ø Recording must be carried out by :

 

#   Election Commission Observer

#   State Police Officer

#   Members of audience ( Any number )

 

Ø After recording , they will upload it on the ECI website

 

Ø All of these persons shall use ( modified ) cVigil mobile app ( or a special purpose app developed by ECI for this purpose )

 

 

Ø Important difference from cVIGIL , is that the Video/Audio recorder / up-loader, shall fully identify himself / herself by providing full data ( including Aadhar No / Voter Car No ) on the mobile app

 

Ø Data shall comprise location / date / time / Speaker Name / Political Party Name etc

 

 

 

 

Ø AI software ( on ECI website ) will :

 

 

#   Match the Voice Profiles of all politicians with each Audio File . With video-audio files

     getting uploaded from SEVERAL / AUTHENTIC sources, probability of a FAKE file, is little

 

 

#   Use of “ Speech – to – Text “ conversion and then “ Parse the audio file and determine

      the “ frequency “ and “ intensity “ of the hate words

 

 

#   Assign “ Marks “ ( for individual politician and aggregate for all politicians

     belonging to each party ) and determine the “ punishment “ ( enshrined in the AI

     algorithm ) and publish the “ punishment “  on various websites and forward the same to

     CBI and State Police for implementation. Copy will be sent to ECI and the Supreme Court

 

 

#  Each “ hate “ word used ( in the speech ) , will attract 1 “ mark “ ( - at some future date, AI software can be trained to

 

 

given “ hate “ word used,  after upload of several thousand hours of Audio file ,  AI software can be “ trained “ to

 

    determine the “ intensity “ of a given “ hate “ word , based on the context in which it was

 

    used, past speech-history of the speaker and occurrence of other non-hate words in a given speech )

    

 

#  On ECI website , this “ Marks Earned “ numbers will be dynamically displayed ( Politician-

 

     ( Politician - wise AND Political Party-wise )

 

 

 

  Punishment - Calculation of “ Quantum “

 

 

Ø For a given politician - debarred from making a speech for :

 

#  More than 10 marks >  1 week

 

#  11 to 20 marks       >   1 month

 

#  More than 20 marks >  6 months ( + Suspension as MP / MLA , if existing member )

 

 

 

Ø For a given Political Party - debarred from contesting any Election for :

 

#  More than aggregate of 50 marks >  1  year

 

#  51 to 100 marks                          >  2 years

 

#  More than 100 marks                   >  5 years ( including General Election )

 

 

Stopping Political Parties ( stopping eligibility ) from receiving Electoral Bonds ( for varying periods ) , could also be considered

 

 

 

  Rationale -  logic and how exactly the punishment quantum was arrived at by the AI  software

 

-        shall be openly displayed on ECI website for everyone to see . Since the

    punishment meted out to the offender individual ( - and to the party to which he / she

    belongs ), is entirely SOFTWARE determined , without any human intervention, there

    can be no reason to allege any bias / partiality / leniency , on the part of ECI / State Police

 

 

Authority for administering punishment :

 

   #   For individual offender >  Concerned State Police

 

   #   For Political Party        >  Election Commission