Debate contribution: Freedom of Expression
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
- Freedom of Expression
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5111259
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Being able to voice and share an opinion is vital in any democratic society, and people should be able to do that freely. I note that the UK Government have responded to the report in question, highlighting the fact that free speech is vital for democracy around the world, including here in the UK, and I echo that view. The right to freedom of expression is protected in article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Freedom of speech is, however, a qualified right; it is not an absolute right and may therefore be subject to restrictions in certain circumstances. For example, boundaries exist when speech becomes hateful or is used to incite criminal or reckless conduct, and people behind such speech should feel the full force of the law in line with our international obligations. My Department recognises the importance of and challenges around freedom of expression, including the need to balance the protection of human rights under articles 9 and 10 of the ECHR.
168 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: 0.05 (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 (0.79).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.50 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.79 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.21 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.79 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.14 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.05 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 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.