Debate contribution: Pornography Ban
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 20 January 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Pornography Ban
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5348554
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I have engaged with the Education Minister on child sexual exploitation and child criminal exploitation but not specifically on targeted advertising around non-fatal strangulation. Part of the issue is about the differing views that people have of how explicit our relationships and sexuality education should be.
If we have boys as young as 10 who are asking such questions of teachers, and if we have girls as young as 14 who are experiencing such behaviours, we need to intervene much sooner and have the conversations with them, not to strip them of their innocence but to protect them from those who are already being corrupted by what they see online on those quite extreme pornographic websites.
Young people need to be equipped with information so that they know that it is not normal behaviour. It is not expected behaviour but abusive and dangerous behaviour, and that message needs to be communicated clearly to young people in an age-appropriate way, recognising that such sites are increasingly available and visible to children as young as 10.
174 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: 0.06 (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 (0.87).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.98).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.07 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.87 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.06 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.98 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.59 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.39 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:15 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.