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
AUTHENTIC sources, probability of a FAKE file, is little
# Use of “ Speech – to – Text “ conversion and then “ Parse the
audio file and
determine
hate words
# Assign “ Marks “ ( for individual politician and aggregate for all
politicians
“ 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, 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- 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
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
With regards,
Hemen Parekh
www.hemenparekh.ai / 01
May 2023
Related
Readings :
Ø A NARCO Test ? ………………………………………… 28 Feb 2014
Extract :
To bring out "
truth " from a suspected criminal , police deliver a NARCO test , by
administering , what is popularly known as TRUTH SERUM
It reveals a person's innermost thoughts and feelings
Occasionally , his feelings about others . Feelings that have so far , remained
suppressed in his subconscious
Of late , we have heard our politicians refer to their political opponents , as
:
> Maut Ka Saudagar
> Khooni Panja
> Shehzada
> Chor ( Thief )
> Criminal
> Mendhak ( Frog )
> Bandar ( Monkey )
> Napunsak ( Impotent )...........etc
Those that failed to receive the full prescribed doze of the Truth Serum , just
call their opponents :
> Corrupt
> Indecisive
> Incompetent
> Insecure
> Spineless
> Confused..................etc
I wonder whether , once in five years , our good doctor EC ( Election
Commissioner ) , administers a NARCO test to our politicians , by announcing
elections !
What I never knew is that this NARCO test also brings to the surface , all
those wonderful / sympathetic feelings that our political bosses
harbored for us - the poor public - always , but were too busy to express all
along !
Here is how they describe us - the poor people of Mother India :
> Suppressed
> Oppressed
> Tortured
> Maligned
> Neglected
> Miserable
> Starving
> Suffocated
> Deprived ..............etc
Such a glorious show of empathy !
I almost wish , we had National Elections , every alternate year !
* hemen parekh ( 01 March 2014 /
Mumbai )
