Debate contribution: Sexually Explicit Deepfake Imagery

Debate contribution by Mr Stewart Dickson on .

MLA
Mr Stewart Dickson
Party at the time
Alliance Party
Date
29 April 2025
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Oral Answers to Questions
Heading
Sexually Explicit Deepfake Imagery
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4922165

Read the official Assembly record

Text

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the way in which you do allow Members to participate in Question Time, particularly how you have allowed Members to make, perhaps off-standing, comments, but perhaps, Mr Speaker, I could invite you to reflect on the behaviour of at least one Member today who certainly rose above that type of behaviour, and it became nothing short of disrupting to those of us who were attempting to listen to sensible answers from the Minister of Justice.

84 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.10 (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).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (0.98).
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.03No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.02No
Dog-whistle messaging0.04No
Controversy escalation0.24No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.03No
Overall judgement0.10At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)0.98
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.02
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
No identity-related subject0.95
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.04
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups0.01
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:28 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.

Challenge this classification