Debate contribution: Sexually Explicit Deepfake Images
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 16 September 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Sexually Explicit Deepfake Images
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5111220
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The past few years have seen an exponential rise in the proliferation of non-consensual sexually explicit deepfake images, which research shows are overwhelmingly targeted at women and girls and are yet another form of sexual abuse and exploitation. Those images perpetuate, promote and normalise misogyny and the sexualisation of women. They dehumanise and objectify them. The harm that they cause is incalculable. My aim is to address that growing threat and the harm that it causes. That is why, earlier this year, I announced in the Assembly my intention to table an amendment to the Justice Bill at Consideration Stage to provide for Northern Ireland-specific deepfake offences in order to ensure that all aspects of offending in that area are captured. In July, I launched a public consultation on legislative proposals on that. Subject to the outcome of the consultation, I intend to ensure that all aspects of that despicable behaviour are captured. Specifically, I am seeking views on proposals on criminalising the creation of sexually explicit deepfake images, requesting their creation and sharing and threatening to share such an image. I believe that those proposed offences would cover the full range of the abhorrent behaviours that are associated with such images. I am also seeking views on the inclusion of specific motivations that will include situations in which a person is carrying out the behaviour to humiliate, alarm or distress the person who is depicted in the image or for the purpose of sexual gratification. That distinction is important to identify those who pose a risk of future sexual harm. Where sexual gratification is proven, risk management measures, such as the requirement to notify police, would be applied. The proposed offences would provide further protections and add significantly to the suite of measures that are already in place to protect people from intolerable sexually motivated behaviours and to eradicate violence against women and girls. The consultation closes on 6 October, and I encourage Members and the public to respond.
330 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: 0.03 (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 (0.94).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.78).
- Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
- 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 | 0.07 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.78 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.21 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.81 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.19 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:13 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.