Debate contribution: Online Abuse
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 9 September 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Online Abuse
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4511483
Read the official Assembly record
Text
There is. Many behaviours that constitute criminal offending are treated in the same manner, regardless of whether they are carried out offline or online. The provisions of the Online Safety Act 2023 create a range of offences that can be used to tackle and prosecute offensive online behaviour. Additional legislation includes the Protection from Harassment (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2016, the Protection from Stalking Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, the Communications Act 2003 and the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. It is important to recognise that, for example, stirring up hatred is already an offence under the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987. Whilst that may be a dated provision, it is, nevertheless, one that can still be applied and ought to be operated where appropriate.
135 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.04 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.76).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.84).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.76 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.84 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.16 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.49 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.46 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.03 |
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.01 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:58 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.