6 ms·

Ireland fast tracks Bill to criminalise harmful voice or image misuse

155 points by mooreds 10mo ago

belorn 10mo ago
How does the law distinguish itself from anti-harassment laws? I recall a old lawsuit (not sure which country) where a student had photoshopped a nude body onto a picture of their teacher and given it to other students. The main question in the case was if this qualified as sexual harassment, even if the teacher in question never received the image. I don't remember the outcome, through I think they were found guilty.
- piltdownman 10mo ago
  The cynic in me assumes its a way of establishing criminal liability on social media platforms for deepfakes impacting politicians credibility - striking while the Grok is still hot as it were.
  - orwin 10mo ago
    I think YouTube and meta (Instagram and Facebook) will be hit as hard, or even harder, because of the numbers of scam ads using likeness. It will make them liable from publishing scam ads (which, to be clear, should already be in the DMA)
  - cmxch 10mo ago
    If they’re fine with targeting BlueSky for the same reasons, then by all means let the law be.
nashashmi 10mo ago
> The deliberate misuse of someone’s image or voice without their consent for malign purposes should be a criminal offence. So much vagueness in misuse yet so much impact with consequences. This bill is being speedlined. And it seems to hurt everyone at the same time. Better to bring a bill with specific limitations and prohibitions that is complete with treatment, consequences, prosecutions, and appeals. Then that bill can be extended to other prohibited actions as they become apparent
- lolc 10mo ago
  Have you read the bill or is the quote the only thing you're going on?
- surgical_fire 10mo ago
  Except this is not the text of the bill. You are quoting a comment from a news articles, and commenting upon it as if you were reading a bill.
piltdownman 10mo ago
So the actual context of this is a long-standing feud between Meta and our elected representatives (and some prominent media figures) regarding social engineering scam ads. You've probably seen some variant of it - a 1:1 copy of a reputable newsoutlet - in this case The Irish Independent, The Irish Times, RTÉ or Newstalk - with a purported video from our Prime Minister or similar which leads to a crypto-trading or forex-trading sales funnel. Simon Harris, our previous Head of State, was inundated with variants of the same script: “In the nation’s best interests, we’ve carried out a full investigation to make sure it’s not a scam,” the AI-generated Harris appears to say in the scam ad shown on YouTube. “This is your chance to change your life. All it takes is one small step: invest €250 and start earning today,” the deepfaked figure tells a press conference. https://www.thejournal.ie/facetcheck-debunk-ai-scam-ad-deepfake-simon-harris-tainaiste-sharon-ni-bheolain-fintan-o-toole-youtube-6860505-Oct2025/ https://www.thejournal.ie/facetcheck-debunk-ai-scam-ad-deepf... https://www.newstalk.com/news/social-media-platforms-see-surge-in-scam-ads-depicting-simon-harris-2126500 https://www.newstalk.com/news/social-media-platforms-see-sur...
- leoc 10mo ago
  (Harris was our head of government (ie. PM or equivalent) rather than head of state (which would be the president).)
- miohtama 10mo ago
  The existing fraud and advertising laws cover these kind of scams. Because the bottleneck is enforcement, adding new laws won't make the world safer.
  - piltdownman 10mo ago
    Except they don't - enforcement is circumvented by psuedo-anonymous users pushing illegal ad campaigns that revert back to inoffensive content or a similar cop-out by the time Meta/X responds to the report https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/despicable-simon-harris-issues-warning-to-elon-musk-as-scam-ads-using-the-taoiseachs-image-flood-x/a1260597459.html https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/despicable-simon-harri... https://www.reddit.com/r/irishpolitics/comments/1i1shz3/anyone_seeing_lots_of_these_on_their_youtube_feed/ https://www.reddit.com/r/irishpolitics/comments/1i1shz3/anyo...
uyzstvqs 10mo ago
This is a good way to regulate this. Criminalize people who abuse AI tools to cause harm. Don't try to impose censorship or mass-surveillance on AI tools. I oppose all pornography, but censoring nudity from a model both compromises the model's quality (example: SD3) and stops legitimate artistic value. Though the framing on Grok is highly duplicitous. It is against the ToS, and it's about a few abusers among millions of legitimate users. Meanwhile there are actual "nudification" services which advertise themselves entirely to enable this kind of abuse.
- 0ckpuppet 10mo ago
  who decides what is harmful? That's going to be like letting a Bible thumping Moral Majority zealot decide what's Art and what's pornography.
  - mikeyouse 10mo ago
    And under which jurisdiction is this going to be prosecuted? So some random Nazi on Twitter makes CSAM of an Irish actress - is Musk going to comply with the subpoena to help the Irish authorities find the user? He’s already said he won’t be punishing users for ‘free speech’ as he defines it.. so then what?
    - saubeidl 10mo ago
      Then we prosecute Musk.
    - yxhuvud 10mo ago
      The images would be published by Grok, which is part of Twitter. They are responsible for what they themselves publish. Hence Twitter is the obvious choice of where to direct the subpoena.
    - pjc50 10mo ago
      Note that the bill includes "distributes", so Twitter clearly counts as "distributor". More interesting question: if the Twitter app is made available through the Apple App store, then would famous Irish-based multinational company Apple be liable as well?
john-h-k 10mo ago
> knowingly uses or infringes upon the use of and publishes ... an individual’s name, photograph ... without the individual’s prior consent ... and being reckless as to whether or not harm is caused to, the other person. > [harm occurs when someone] seriously interferes with the other person’s peace and privacy or causes alarm or distress to the other person This seems very widely worded. A newspaper publishing the name/image of a suspected criminal is definitely "publishing an individuals name, photograph", without their consent, and can quite clearly cause alarm or distress. Without some exemption clauses added, this bill seems to basically ban using anyone's name/photograph/likeness in ANY context that criticises them; it will almost certainly conflict with ECHR's Article 10 on freedom of expression. However(!!) with a few exemptions it can be made much better. Even tying it to AI generated photos/voice/etc would help - most _genuine_ criticism and reporting can go without the use of AI, but a lot of the intentional harm and sexual harassment did not occur before AI. If they don't want to do that, adding some form of "exemption if the information was used in a non-libellous context" could also work.
- sallveburrpi 10mo ago
  > A newspaper publishing the name/image of a suspected criminal is definitely "publishing an individuals name, photograph", without their consent, and can quite clearly cause alarm or distress. Cherrypicking your example: Newspapers shouldn’t publish names or images of suspects, so to me this specific example would be a very good thing. Not sure (IANAL) but I think in my country this is illegal already Otherwise I agree that it’s very ambitious wording
  - Amezarak 10mo ago
    > Cherrypicking your example: Newspapers shouldn’t publish names or images of suspects, so to me this specific example would be a very good thing. Not sure (IANAL) but I think in my country this is illegal already Why shouldn't they? Why shouldn't the government have to publicize the names and identities of people they arrest so we know they're not doing so illegitimately?
    - 10mo ago
richwater 10mo ago
AI is a god send to governments who have been trying to push through censorship laws under the guise of "protecting [people|children|women|etc]"
- immibis 10mo ago
  Hot take that 99% of the world agrees with: Cyberbullying is bad and it's ok to punish cyberbullies.
  - expedition32 10mo ago
    Nobody likes libertarians and you're beginning to understand why.
mystraline 10mo ago
Sure, its a proposed law for citizens of this country. So, how's that going to work out with Indian, Pakistani, North Korean, or similar locations using voice spoofing? Thats right. None.
- nemomarx 10mo ago
  It seems to target the technology they'd be using - so the voice software might be liable, or the platform they use to convey the scam?
- reillyse 10mo ago
  I imagine whoever publishes it to the jurisdiction would be liable
ozlikethewizard 10mo ago
The UK is considering an injunction to have Grok and potentially X banned until this issue is resolved. I'm no huge fan of state intervention, particularly my state which is notoriously over zealous, prudish, and subtly authoritarian. The sweeping changes were seeing in the UK are somewhat reminiscent of the old "First they came for the trade unionists" poem, and there certainly has been many of us speaking out against the attacks on freedom to protest and expression here. However, when you swap out trade unionists for "People comitting sexual harassment", "Paedophiles", and "Billionaires", Im somewhat more inclined to side with the government on this. Were already way down the slippery slope, at least some genuinely bad actors are catching some flak this time I guess.
- cmxch 10mo ago
  Except that the UK is just laundering authoritarianism through a clause that selectively harms one organization and not all of those that have platforms with the same problem. Given the UK’s already high authoritarian tendencies towards speech codes, it would be better to have the US sanction Kier Starmer, OFCOM, and other associated parties in the Commonwealth, narrowly specified.
  - ozlikethewizard 10mo ago
    Pot calling kettle black. While our government blows an awful lot of hot air its incredibly easy to live a life free from state intervention here, and i live in a major city not some remote village. We dont have armed federal troops gunning people down in the streets, yet I guess.
- hexbin010 10mo ago
  If the UK actually had an issue with X, the PM would delete his account
  - ozlikethewizard 10mo ago
    I mean the PM doesnt run his X account, but besides ofcom are investigating and supposedly X are complying https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ceqz7pyd303o https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ceqz7pyd303o
antonvs 10mo ago
> Ireland fast tracks Bill Poor Bill, what did he do to deserve this?
- Ylpertnodi 10mo ago
  He got thoughted.
rob74 10mo ago
"Ireland fast tracks Bill to criminalise harmful voice or image misuse" - now that's some strange capitalis/zation in that headline. I'm Ok with title case, but randomly capitalising just one word in a title looks strange. Or is this something specifically Irish?
- bheadmaster 10mo ago
  I suppose Bill is going to have a busy schedule in the following days.
- joelccr 10mo ago
  I can't speak for Ireland, but in the UK it is quite common to refer to a Bill (before it has passed) or an Act (when it is passed) with a capital letter, rightly or wrongly, because its name would be capitalised (in this case The Protection of Voice and Image Bill, with Bill replaced by Act once it has become law). It is also a capitalised term within the text of the law itself.
  - CatMustard 10mo ago
    It also helps that Bill is not a common name here at all (the only Bill I've ever met in my life was an American). I can imagine how confusing it would be if all instances of the word Bill in articles such as these were replaced with Seán lol.
    - favorited 10mo ago
      Bill is typically not a given name at all, but rather a nickname for someone named William (William -> Will -> Bill).
  - brendoelfrendo 10mo ago
    I can't find a style guide for the Irish Times, but the Independent's style guide seems to agree with you: capitalize when used as part of the name of a bill or act, and use lowercase thereafter [0]. Perhaps because they are using Bill in the headline as a shorthand for the full-name of the bill (probably for space reasons), they saw fit to capitalize it? Regardless, this is one of those cases where it's not really a grammatical choice but one of style/convention. [0] https://www.independent.ie/editorial/pdfs/stylebook23.pdf https://www.independent.ie/editorial/pdfs/stylebook23.pdf
nickdothutton 10mo ago
What is the succinct definition of "harmful"?
- a_paddy 10mo ago
  A tort
- contagiousflow 10mo ago
  What do you think courts are for?
- extraduder_ire 10mo ago
  Section 2, subsection 2 of the Bill describes it. (2) : For the purposes of subsection (1), a person causes harm to another person where— (a) he or she, by his or her acts, intentionally or recklessly seriously interferes with the other person’s peace and privacy or causes alarm or distress to the other person, and (b) his or her acts are such that a reasonable person would realise that the acts would seriously interfere with the other person’s peace and privacy or cause alarm or distress to the other person.
hiprob 10mo ago
Ireland is just a copy of the UK, except it's a tax haven and a trojan horse of the EU. They have the same age requirement regulation online as the UK.
- piltdownman 10mo ago
  Nonsense. • There is ongoing discussion in the Irish parliament and policy circles about setting a digital age of consent or minimum age (e.g. 16) for social media access. This debate is driven by concern over youth wellbeing, although no formal law has yet been enacted. https://avpassociation.com/ireland/ https://avpassociation.com/ireland/
  - gregbot 10mo ago
    >This debate is driven by concern over youth wellbeing I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you if you actually think thats what is motivating this
    - foo70 10mo ago
      what do you think is motivating this? Do you really think that protecting our children from the garbage on these platforms is contrary to free speech? The fact is that these platforms are run for profit. They are not fit for purpose if they can be exploited to exploit children, and, for that matter to facilitate unelected billionaires to overthrow elected democracies.
  - extraduder_ire 10mo ago
    There is an age verification law in Ireland they might be referring to, but it only applies to companies which operate from here and not ones which simply allow Irish residents to access them. Notably including "X international unlimited company". Not Reddit though, they technically operate from the Netherlands despite having a presence in Dublin.
- BoxOfRain 10mo ago
  > Ireland is just a copy of the UK That's certainly a geopolitically contentious take if I've ever seen one.
amiga386 10mo ago
This is the entire proposed bill: https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/bills/bill/2025/11/ https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/bills/bill/2025/11/ https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/bill/2025/11/eng/initiated/b1125d.pdf https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/bill/2025/11/eng/in... Interpretation 1. In this Act— “broadcast” has the meaning assigned to it by the Broadcasting Act 2009; “distribute” means distribute to the public or a section of the public; “harm” includes psychological harm; “Minister” means the Minister for Justice; “publish” means publish, other than by way of broadcast, to the public or to a portion of the public. Offences 2. (1) A person who— (a) knowingly uses or infringes upon the use of and publishes, performs, distributes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to the public an individual’s name, photograph, voice, or likeness in any medium for purposes of advertising products, events, political activities, merchandise, goods, or services or for purposes of fundraising, solicitation of donations, purchases of products, merchandise, goods, or services or to influence elections or referenda, or (b) distributes, transmits, or otherwise makes available an algorithm, software, tool, or other technology, service, or device, the primary purpose or function of which is the production of an individual’s photograph, voice, or likeness, is guilty of an offence where these actions are carried out— (i) without the individual’s prior consent, or, in the case of a minor, the prior consent of such minor's parent or legal guardian, or in the case of a deceased individual, the consent of the executor or administrator, heirs, or devisees of such deceased individual, (ii) with intent to cause harm to, or being reckless as to whether or not harm is caused to, the other person. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a person causes harm to another person where— (a) he or she, by his or her acts, intentionally or recklessly seriously interferes with the other person’s peace and privacy or causes alarm or distress to the other person, and (b) his or her acts are such that a reasonable person would realise that the acts would seriously interfere with the other person’s peace and privacy or cause alarm or distress to the other person. (3) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section is liable— (a) on summary conviction to a class A fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or both, or (b) on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years, or both. Review and operation of Act 3. The Minister shall, not later than one year after the commencement of this Act, carry out a review of the operation of this Act. Short title and commencement 4. (1) This Act may be cited as the Protection of Voice and Image Act 2025. (2) This Act shall come into operation on such day or days as the Minister for Justice may by order or orders appoint either generally or with reference to any particular purpose or provision and different days may be so appointed for different purposes or different provisions.

155 points by mooreds 10mo ago

belorn 10mo ago

How does the law distinguish itself from anti-harassment laws? I recall a old lawsuit (not sure which country) where a student had photoshopped a nude body onto a picture of their teacher and given it to other students. The main question in the case was if this qualified as sexual harassment, even if the teacher in question never received the image. I don't remember the outcome, through I think they were found guilty.

piltdownman 10mo ago
The cynic in me assumes its a way of establishing criminal liability on social media platforms for deepfakes impacting politicians credibility - striking while the Grok is still hot as it were.
- orwin 10mo ago
  I think YouTube and meta (Instagram and Facebook) will be hit as hard, or even harder, because of the numbers of scam ads using likeness. It will make them liable from publishing scam ads (which, to be clear, should already be in the DMA)
- cmxch 10mo ago
  If they’re fine with targeting BlueSky for the same reasons, then by all means let the law be.

nashashmi 10mo ago

> The deliberate misuse of someone’s image or voice without their consent for malign purposes should be a criminal offence. So much vagueness in misuse yet so much impact with consequences. This bill is being speedlined. And it seems to hurt everyone at the same time. Better to bring a bill with specific limitations and prohibitions that is complete with treatment, consequences, prosecutions, and appeals. Then that bill can be extended to other prohibited actions as they become apparent

lolc 10mo ago
Have you read the bill or is the quote the only thing you're going on?
surgical_fire 10mo ago
Except this is not the text of the bill. You are quoting a comment from a news articles, and commenting upon it as if you were reading a bill.

piltdownman 10mo ago

So the actual context of this is a long-standing feud between Meta and our elected representatives (and some prominent media figures) regarding social engineering scam ads. You've probably seen some variant of it - a 1:1 copy of a reputable newsoutlet - in this case The Irish Independent, The Irish Times, RTÉ or Newstalk - with a purported video from our Prime Minister or similar which leads to a crypto-trading or forex-trading sales funnel. Simon Harris, our previous Head of State, was inundated with variants of the same script: “In the nation’s best interests, we’ve carried out a full investigation to make sure it’s not a scam,” the AI-generated Harris appears to say in the scam ad shown on YouTube. “This is your chance to change your life. All it takes is one small step: invest €250 and start earning today,” the deepfaked figure tells a press conference. https://www.thejournal.ie/facetcheck-debunk-ai-scam-ad-deepfake-simon-harris-tainaiste-sharon-ni-bheolain-fintan-o-toole-youtube-6860505-Oct2025/ https://www.thejournal.ie/facetcheck-debunk-ai-scam-ad-deepf... https://www.newstalk.com/news/social-media-platforms-see-surge-in-scam-ads-depicting-simon-harris-2126500 https://www.newstalk.com/news/social-media-platforms-see-sur...

leoc 10mo ago
(Harris was our head of government (ie. PM or equivalent) rather than head of state (which would be the president).)
miohtama 10mo ago
The existing fraud and advertising laws cover these kind of scams. Because the bottleneck is enforcement, adding new laws won't make the world safer.
- piltdownman 10mo ago
  Except they don't - enforcement is circumvented by psuedo-anonymous users pushing illegal ad campaigns that revert back to inoffensive content or a similar cop-out by the time Meta/X responds to the report https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/despicable-simon-harris-issues-warning-to-elon-musk-as-scam-ads-using-the-taoiseachs-image-flood-x/a1260597459.html https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/despicable-simon-harri... https://www.reddit.com/r/irishpolitics/comments/1i1shz3/anyone_seeing_lots_of_these_on_their_youtube_feed/ https://www.reddit.com/r/irishpolitics/comments/1i1shz3/anyo...

uyzstvqs 10mo ago

This is a good way to regulate this. Criminalize people who abuse AI tools to cause harm. Don't try to impose censorship or mass-surveillance on AI tools. I oppose all pornography, but censoring nudity from a model both compromises the model's quality (example: SD3) and stops legitimate artistic value. Though the framing on Grok is highly duplicitous. It is against the ToS, and it's about a few abusers among millions of legitimate users. Meanwhile there are actual "nudification" services which advertise themselves entirely to enable this kind of abuse.

0ckpuppet 10mo ago
who decides what is harmful? That's going to be like letting a Bible thumping Moral Majority zealot decide what's Art and what's pornography.
- mikeyouse 10mo ago
  And under which jurisdiction is this going to be prosecuted? So some random Nazi on Twitter makes CSAM of an Irish actress - is Musk going to comply with the subpoena to help the Irish authorities find the user? He’s already said he won’t be punishing users for ‘free speech’ as he defines it.. so then what?
  - saubeidl 10mo ago
    Then we prosecute Musk.
  - yxhuvud 10mo ago
    The images would be published by Grok, which is part of Twitter. They are responsible for what they themselves publish. Hence Twitter is the obvious choice of where to direct the subpoena.
  - pjc50 10mo ago
    Note that the bill includes "distributes", so Twitter clearly counts as "distributor". More interesting question: if the Twitter app is made available through the Apple App store, then would famous Irish-based multinational company Apple be liable as well?

john-h-k 10mo ago

> knowingly uses or infringes upon the use of and publishes ... an individual’s name, photograph ... without the individual’s prior consent ... and being reckless as to whether or not harm is caused to, the other person. > [harm occurs when someone] seriously interferes with the other person’s peace and privacy or causes alarm or distress to the other person This seems very widely worded. A newspaper publishing the name/image of a suspected criminal is definitely "publishing an individuals name, photograph", without their consent, and can quite clearly cause alarm or distress. Without some exemption clauses added, this bill seems to basically ban using anyone's name/photograph/likeness in ANY context that criticises them; it will almost certainly conflict with ECHR's Article 10 on freedom of expression. However(!!) with a few exemptions it can be made much better. Even tying it to AI generated photos/voice/etc would help - most _genuine_ criticism and reporting can go without the use of AI, but a lot of the intentional harm and sexual harassment did not occur before AI. If they don't want to do that, adding some form of "exemption if the information was used in a non-libellous context" could also work.

sallveburrpi 10mo ago
> A newspaper publishing the name/image of a suspected criminal is definitely "publishing an individuals name, photograph", without their consent, and can quite clearly cause alarm or distress. Cherrypicking your example: Newspapers shouldn’t publish names or images of suspects, so to me this specific example would be a very good thing. Not sure (IANAL) but I think in my country this is illegal already Otherwise I agree that it’s very ambitious wording
- Amezarak 10mo ago
  > Cherrypicking your example: Newspapers shouldn’t publish names or images of suspects, so to me this specific example would be a very good thing. Not sure (IANAL) but I think in my country this is illegal already Why shouldn't they? Why shouldn't the government have to publicize the names and identities of people they arrest so we know they're not doing so illegitimately?
  - 10mo ago

richwater 10mo ago

AI is a god send to governments who have been trying to push through censorship laws under the guise of "protecting [people|children|women|etc]"

immibis 10mo ago
Hot take that 99% of the world agrees with: Cyberbullying is bad and it's ok to punish cyberbullies.
- expedition32 10mo ago
  Nobody likes libertarians and you're beginning to understand why.

mystraline 10mo ago

Sure, its a proposed law for citizens of this country. So, how's that going to work out with Indian, Pakistani, North Korean, or similar locations using voice spoofing? Thats right. None.

nemomarx 10mo ago
It seems to target the technology they'd be using - so the voice software might be liable, or the platform they use to convey the scam?
reillyse 10mo ago
I imagine whoever publishes it to the jurisdiction would be liable

ozlikethewizard 10mo ago

The UK is considering an injunction to have Grok and potentially X banned until this issue is resolved. I'm no huge fan of state intervention, particularly my state which is notoriously over zealous, prudish, and subtly authoritarian. The sweeping changes were seeing in the UK are somewhat reminiscent of the old "First they came for the trade unionists" poem, and there certainly has been many of us speaking out against the attacks on freedom to protest and expression here. However, when you swap out trade unionists for "People comitting sexual harassment", "Paedophiles", and "Billionaires", Im somewhat more inclined to side with the government on this. Were already way down the slippery slope, at least some genuinely bad actors are catching some flak this time I guess.

cmxch 10mo ago
Except that the UK is just laundering authoritarianism through a clause that selectively harms one organization and not all of those that have platforms with the same problem. Given the UK’s already high authoritarian tendencies towards speech codes, it would be better to have the US sanction Kier Starmer, OFCOM, and other associated parties in the Commonwealth, narrowly specified.
- ozlikethewizard 10mo ago
  Pot calling kettle black. While our government blows an awful lot of hot air its incredibly easy to live a life free from state intervention here, and i live in a major city not some remote village. We dont have armed federal troops gunning people down in the streets, yet I guess.
hexbin010 10mo ago
If the UK actually had an issue with X, the PM would delete his account
- ozlikethewizard 10mo ago
  I mean the PM doesnt run his X account, but besides ofcom are investigating and supposedly X are complying https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ceqz7pyd303o https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ceqz7pyd303o

antonvs 10mo ago

> Ireland fast tracks Bill Poor Bill, what did he do to deserve this?

Ylpertnodi 10mo ago
He got thoughted.

rob74 10mo ago

"Ireland fast tracks Bill to criminalise harmful voice or image misuse" - now that's some strange capitalis/zation in that headline. I'm Ok with title case, but randomly capitalising just one word in a title looks strange. Or is this something specifically Irish?

bheadmaster 10mo ago
I suppose Bill is going to have a busy schedule in the following days.
joelccr 10mo ago
I can't speak for Ireland, but in the UK it is quite common to refer to a Bill (before it has passed) or an Act (when it is passed) with a capital letter, rightly or wrongly, because its name would be capitalised (in this case The Protection of Voice and Image Bill, with Bill replaced by Act once it has become law). It is also a capitalised term within the text of the law itself.
- CatMustard 10mo ago
  It also helps that Bill is not a common name here at all (the only Bill I've ever met in my life was an American). I can imagine how confusing it would be if all instances of the word Bill in articles such as these were replaced with Seán lol.
  - favorited 10mo ago
    Bill is typically not a given name at all, but rather a nickname for someone named William (William -> Will -> Bill).
- brendoelfrendo 10mo ago
  I can't find a style guide for the Irish Times, but the Independent's style guide seems to agree with you: capitalize when used as part of the name of a bill or act, and use lowercase thereafter [0]. Perhaps because they are using Bill in the headline as a shorthand for the full-name of the bill (probably for space reasons), they saw fit to capitalize it? Regardless, this is one of those cases where it's not really a grammatical choice but one of style/convention. [0] https://www.independent.ie/editorial/pdfs/stylebook23.pdf https://www.independent.ie/editorial/pdfs/stylebook23.pdf

nickdothutton 10mo ago

What is the succinct definition of "harmful"?

a_paddy 10mo ago
A tort
contagiousflow 10mo ago
What do you think courts are for?
extraduder_ire 10mo ago
Section 2, subsection 2 of the Bill describes it. (2) : For the purposes of subsection (1), a person causes harm to another person where— (a) he or she, by his or her acts, intentionally or recklessly seriously interferes with the other person’s peace and privacy or causes alarm or distress to the other person, and (b) his or her acts are such that a reasonable person would realise that the acts would seriously interfere with the other person’s peace and privacy or cause alarm or distress to the other person.

hiprob 10mo ago

Ireland is just a copy of the UK, except it's a tax haven and a trojan horse of the EU. They have the same age requirement regulation online as the UK.

piltdownman 10mo ago
Nonsense. • There is ongoing discussion in the Irish parliament and policy circles about setting a digital age of consent or minimum age (e.g. 16) for social media access. This debate is driven by concern over youth wellbeing, although no formal law has yet been enacted. https://avpassociation.com/ireland/ https://avpassociation.com/ireland/
- gregbot 10mo ago
  >This debate is driven by concern over youth wellbeing I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you if you actually think thats what is motivating this
  - foo70 10mo ago
    what do you think is motivating this? Do you really think that protecting our children from the garbage on these platforms is contrary to free speech? The fact is that these platforms are run for profit. They are not fit for purpose if they can be exploited to exploit children, and, for that matter to facilitate unelected billionaires to overthrow elected democracies.
- extraduder_ire 10mo ago
  There is an age verification law in Ireland they might be referring to, but it only applies to companies which operate from here and not ones which simply allow Irish residents to access them. Notably including "X international unlimited company". Not Reddit though, they technically operate from the Netherlands despite having a presence in Dublin.
BoxOfRain 10mo ago
> Ireland is just a copy of the UK That's certainly a geopolitically contentious take if I've ever seen one.

amiga386 10mo ago

This is the entire proposed bill: https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/bills/bill/2025/11/ https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/bills/bill/2025/11/ https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/bill/2025/11/eng/initiated/b1125d.pdf https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/bill/2025/11/eng/in... Interpretation 1. In this Act— “broadcast” has the meaning assigned to it by the Broadcasting Act 2009; “distribute” means distribute to the public or a section of the public; “harm” includes psychological harm; “Minister” means the Minister for Justice; “publish” means publish, other than by way of broadcast, to the public or to a portion of the public. Offences 2. (1) A person who— (a) knowingly uses or infringes upon the use of and publishes, performs, distributes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to the public an individual’s name, photograph, voice, or likeness in any medium for purposes of advertising products, events, political activities, merchandise, goods, or services or for purposes of fundraising, solicitation of donations, purchases of products, merchandise, goods, or services or to influence elections or referenda, or (b) distributes, transmits, or otherwise makes available an algorithm, software, tool, or other technology, service, or device, the primary purpose or function of which is the production of an individual’s photograph, voice, or likeness, is guilty of an offence where these actions are carried out— (i) without the individual’s prior consent, or, in the case of a minor, the prior consent of such minor's parent or legal guardian, or in the case of a deceased individual, the consent of the executor or administrator, heirs, or devisees of such deceased individual, (ii) with intent to cause harm to, or being reckless as to whether or not harm is caused to, the other person. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a person causes harm to another person where— (a) he or she, by his or her acts, intentionally or recklessly seriously interferes with the other person’s peace and privacy or causes alarm or distress to the other person, and (b) his or her acts are such that a reasonable person would realise that the acts would seriously interfere with the other person’s peace and privacy or cause alarm or distress to the other person. (3) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section is liable— (a) on summary conviction to a class A fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or both, or (b) on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years, or both. Review and operation of Act 3. The Minister shall, not later than one year after the commencement of this Act, carry out a review of the operation of this Act. Short title and commencement 4. (1) This Act may be cited as the Protection of Voice and Image Act 2025. (2) This Act shall come into operation on such day or days as the Minister for Justice may by order or orders appoint either generally or with reference to any particular purpose or provision and different days may be so appointed for different purposes or different provisions.