Debate contribution: Sexually Explicit Deepfake Images
Debate contribution by Ms Diane Forsythe on .
- MLA
- Ms Diane Forsythe
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 16 September 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Sexually Explicit Deepfake Images
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5111226
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Minister for her answers and for her work in the area. As someone who was a victim of a deepfake some three and a half years ago, I welcome the opportunity to work with the Minister on a number of round-table discussions to take things forward on that. As I said, that happened three and a half years ago. It is hard to believe that it is so long ago, but it opened my eyes to how much the PSNI's hands are tied by the limitations in the law on making prosecutions on electronic offences, and it made me particularly concerned for my children and other children when thinking about the safeguards that will be in place when fake images go into mass circulation. What is the Minister's view on how we can keep the law up to date in the digital age?
146 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 (0.91).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.91 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.44 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.36 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.19 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 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.