Ms Caoilfhionn Gallagher:

I thank Deputy Sherlock for the questions and for all the work he has done in this space, which is hugely important. He started his remarks by making reference to that horrifying article about AI-created child sexual abuses images. He may know I have acted for organisations that represent child victims of sexual abuse across borders, in the Philippines, Uganda and in a range of other countries, where the children have been abused online by people from Europe, the US, Australia and so on, with directed abuse. I have some examples from the organisations with which I have been working of AI-created child sexual abuse images arising from some of the images they had because some were not sufficiently extreme and there was more and more of a market on the dark web. I am happy, if it assists, to put the Deputy in contact with some of those organisations that are very helpful. One of them is ECPAT International but another is Child Redress International that looks at ways in which victims who are in countries abroad can access victim-focused remedies which are primarily designed for those who are abused as children in Ireland. The victim mechanism assumes you are in Ireland and you are a child abused by an individual in Ireland but if you happen to be in the Philippines, our systems do not work very well cross-border. I realise that is straying a little outside today's topic but I wanted to indicate that I am happy to engage further on that. It is hugely important and I thank the Deputy for starting with such a child-centred focus. The bottom line is what we are all concerned about here is child protection and those impacted most severely by the issues we are talking about.

I obviously agree with what was said by Dr. Ryan. I agree with the concern he raises as a matter of principlel in that many of the items we are talking about in the guidance documents are essentially soft law. They are guidance documents and do not have teeth. Many of the ways in which those international materials end up having teeth is in a way that does not particularly assist in this space. For example, through Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights when bringing a case against a state in the European Court of Human Rights, the court will increasingly look at these topics. However, when looking at a case against a state, that does not assist particularly in this sphere. In addition to the point made by Dr. Ryan, there is also the fact that if there is non-compliance with the guidance that has been produced, that does not automatically mean there has been a breach of the code but it is a relevant factor to take into account and keeping a close eye on that will be important.

The final thing I want to say on Coimisiún na Meán relates to something on page 14 of the consultation document. It is important we have a look at this in light of some of the earlier discussions. The AVMS directive, when looking at content harmful to the general public, has a definition which excludes some of the issues referred to earlier by Professor O'Sullivan particularly. That is important because it is kind of old fashioned in some ways. It relates to illegal content that is harmful to the general public in the sense of it being provocation to commit terrorist offences or content which constitutes a criminal offence relating to child pornography - a phrase which is not one I would use myself - and so on. Those definitions are drawn from the AVMS directive. However, the final two paragraphs are important because a number of respondents in the call for inputs considered that Coimisiún na Meán should include a wider range of harms, looking at, for example, context that promoted misogyny, attitudes that lead to gender-based violence, and encouragement of racist and other discriminatory attitudes. The current position is the draft code focuses on the harms covered by the AVMS directive and on those wider issues what it has said is that Coimisiún na Meán will consider the potential relevance in relation to content that promotes discriminatory attitudes in collaboration with the European Commission and its counterparts in other member states. It is very important we and the Oireachtas ensures Coimisiún na Meán does that, works with like-minded partners and takes a lead on that issue because many of the harms about which we are talking are not solely about individual victims, but about the promotion of a set of attitudes that ultimately changes the water cooler moments the Senator spoke about earlier and the way we as a society interact. That is critical and at the moment it is not covered because it is out with the AVMS directive. I understand why that is, and the need as set out by the coimisiún to have a broader base of support, but it is critical. We need to keep an eye on it and we need to be trailblazers on that topic.