Michael McNamara, MEP, addressed the European Parliament trialogue on the proposed AI omnibus to demand a robust ban on nudification and undressing applications that create non-consensual sexual imagery. He warns that a narrowly worded prohibition could be easily circumvented and leave victims unprotected.
Parliamentary appeal
Michael McNamara outlines why legislators across political groups and institutions agreed the scale of non-consensual sexual imagery produced by so-called nudifiers requires immediate action. He says the Council and the Parliament seized the moment to negotiate a ban in the AI omnibus, driven by concerns for women and girls.
What is at stake
McNamara explains that some draft texts would limit the ban to full nudity, allowing token covers like stars or bullseyes to place images outside the prohibition. He argues that such wording would permit circumvention and fail to stop those economic actors who monetise this harm.
International comparison
He points to recent action in the United Kingdom, where the ban referenced all or part of a person’s exposed genitals, buttocks or breasts, and says the trialogue offers an opportunity to set a stronger European standard.
Appeal to negotiators
McNamara urges colleagues to hold the line on a broad, anatomically precise definition not to block progress but to ensure victims are protected and future harms reduced. He insists the goal is effective protection for women and children, not loopholes for tech companies.
We publish thousands of recordings to make Irish politics transparent and resistant to manipulation. Spotted an error? Report it — together we are building a reliable archive of Irish politics.
Thank you very much, Chair. Across political groups, across institutions, legislators looked at the scale of non-consensual sexual imagery at what tools like Grok Spicy Mode, but it's important to say that it's not just about Grok Spicy Mode, there are many other nudifiers out there. We looked at what they were doing to women and girls right now and decided that this was a moment to act. I think that must be acknowledged, it's a testament to both the Council and the Parliament and groups across the political spectrum of this Parliament that when the opportunity arose, it was taken. For many groups in the Parliament, including my own, securing a ban on nudification and undressing applications is a key negotiated outcome that is sought from the AI omnibus. We fought for it because non-consensual intimate imagery is a systemic gendered harm being industrialised by AI. I think we have to be honest about where negotiations currently stand. I am worried, not about whether we will get a ban, we will, but I'm worried about whether the ban will actually do what we need it to do. Under one version of the text currently on the table, it states the prohibition should be limited to realistic depictions of exposed intimate parts, in particular the genitals, pubic area, anus, fully exposed buttocks or fully exposed female breasts, including nipples and areolae. So with this wording, placing a star or a bullseye over a young person's or even an old person, any person's genitals would be sufficient to take the image outside of the scope of the prohibition. What would be required for the prohibition to kick in would be full nudity. I don't believe that is the ban that people are seeking. I don't believe it's a ban that will actually be effective. Insofar as it is a ban, it is one with an open instruction on how to circumvent it for those companies that wish to monetise this activity. And clearly there are economic actors, albeit a small number and on the fringes, who do wish to monetise this. We can also of course look at what other jurisdictions are doing. Only last week in the United Kingdom, a ban was promulgated which went much further and referenced all or part of a person's exposed genitals, buttocks or breasts. That is important because it prevents the circumvention of it by just putting in a token, as I say, bullseye symbol, star, etc. So we now have the opportunity in this trialogue to set a standard that actually protects women and children. I would urge colleagues to hold the line on a broad, anatomically precise definition, not because we want to be difficult, not because we want to stop progress, not because we want to stop economic activity, but because the victims of this behaviour deserve nothing less and we need to reduce the number of victims in future, not provide an instruction to tech companies on how to carry on regardless. Thank you.
Thank you for downloading 🙏
If you publish this material on social media, we would be very grateful if you tagged VideoParliament. It helps us reach more people and keep building a transparent archive of Irish politics.
