Japanese Speech Jammer Can Silence Hecklers, But Is It Ethical?

As published by NewsFactor.

You know that neighbor who always stops you while you're walking the dog to talk about sports or the neighborhood association?

How about the acquaintance on the train who wants to tell you his life story, or the coworker who won't shut up about her vacation?

You know you've wished there was a "mute button" that silenced their endless yapping.

Now there is, but no, there is not (yet) an app for that.

Stutter Gun

Japanese researchers have invented a device that's as useful as it is scary. When pointed directly at a person it records his or her words and in microseconds shoots them back so fast that it causes brain freeze, producing an artificial stutter.

Talk about your own words coming back to hurt you.

The prototype looks like a radar gun used by police to trap speeders, but with a laser pointer, directional microphone and a distance sensor. It's effective within about 98 feet. Its inventors suggest it could be used to block hecklers or microphone hogs at events, or people who are nuisances in public places.

"Fair discussions are essential for resolving conflicts," writes Koji Tsukada of Ochanomizu University in Tokyo in his research paper on the Speech Jammer, which was published by arXiv.org, an e-print service run by Cornell University for articles on science and mathematics.

"We have to establish and obey rules for proper turn-taking when speaking," Tsukada said. However, some people tend to lengthen their turns or deliberately interrupt other people...."

Tsukada proposes the device could be used as a turn-taking controller, in which the signal would be directed at noisy people via microphone and speakers, or as a "portable speech-jamming" gun, in which the signal is directed through the air directly from the device.

Since it can't be used discreetly, unlike jammers already available to block cell phone signals, it's uses for now are somewhat limited. It's also highly questionable whether such a device would ever be approved by regulators such as the FCC in the United States, or anywhere else. After all, imagine its ability for mischievous potential if it's aimed at, say, a politician during a debate, or a quarterback during a huddle.

Which Is More Rude?

In addition to legal issues, the device raises ethical issues. Is it wrong to use technology to effectively deny someone else's right to free speech, even if the intention is to uphold civility or your own quality of life?

"There is a difference between the right to free speech and the right to talk," says Miriam Schulman, assistant director of the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University in California, which deals with technology issues.

"When someone is talking too much, he may have the right to do it, but it doesn't make it less problematic. It's really invading your space," Schulman said. "But it doesn't seem to me this technology is any less rude than the original behavior. I don't see how it helps from an ethical point of view. It's unlikely to cool the situation down."

She would rather conductors, librarians, store owners or other people of authority keep the quiet.

Still, Schulman, who deals with noisy fellow commuters on the train to work each day, added "It sure is tempting."