Harman denied the allegations, saying she was never an apologist for paedophilia and that there is no evidence she personally supported PIE's views. She said her work at NCCL was to protect children, especially from child abuse, and described the Daily Mail claims as a smear.

A contemporaneous NCCL submission said: 'Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult, result in no identifiable damage.' The article says this text was part of a document written before Harman joined NCCL, and it was later used in allegations against her.

Harman wrote that the Daily Mail's allegations were 'horrific' and said: 'This is not true' regarding claims she supported lowering the age of consent, was an apologist for child sex abuse, or had a relaxed attitude to paedophilia. She said the document cited by critics was written before she started at NCCL.

The article reports that Harman faced criticism after documents surfaced showing NCCL had argued that sexually explicit images of children should be legal unless there was evidence the child had been harmed. It quotes the NCCL position that prosecutors should have to prove harm rather than defendants justify the images.

Sky News reported that Harman said the activities of PIE were 'regrettable' and that there was a historical view in the group that one could have consensual relationships with a child if one was an adult. She rejected the implication that her own work supported that view.

BBC reported that Harman insisted her work at the National Council for Civil Liberties was not influenced by the Paedophile Information Exchange and that she was not "apologising for paedophilia or colluding with paedophilia." The article also says she described claims that she had a "relaxed attitude to paedophilia and ... watering down child pornography laws" as a "smear."

The YouTube interview segment shows Harman denying that her work at NCCL was influenced by PIE or that she was apologising for or colluding with paedophilia. It also includes questioning about a briefing paper on child-protection photography that said prosecutions should proceed only if harm could be proved.

Reuters reported that Harman "strongly denied" allegations that she had any connection with the Paedophile Information Exchange, saying the claims were "untrue and misleading." The piece also noted that the Daily Mail had accused her of a "relaxed attitude to paedophilia" and of helping water down child pornography laws.

Wikipedia’s article on the Paedophile Information Exchange describes NCCL’s position while PIE was affiliated: "Whilst PIE was affiliated with it, the National Council for Civil Liberties (now Liberty) argued that photographs of undressed children should not be considered 'indecent' – and therefore illegal – unless it could be proven that the subject had suffered harm, or an inference to that effect could reasonably be drawn from the images." It states that "A document penned on the organisation's behalf by Harriet Harman ... placed the onus of proving harm on prosecutors" and that this document also argued "it is none-the-less justifiable to restrain activities by photographer[s] which involve placing children under the age of 14 (or, arguably, 16) in sexual situations." The entry adds that Harman "denied she had supported PIE" and denied specifically that she supported a campaign for the age of consent to be reduced to 10.

Christian Concern summarises historical NCCL material linked in media coverage: "In 1976, when Ms Harman’s husband, Jack Dromey, was on the executive of the NCCL, it filed a submission to a parliamentary committee claiming that a proposed Bill to protect children from sex abusers would lead to 'damaging and absurd prosecutions.' The submission said: 'Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in with an adult, result in no identifiable damage. The real need is a change in the attitude which assumes that all cases of paedophilia result in lasting damage.'" The article notes that in a later NCCL letter "she argued that a pornographic picture of a naked child should not be considered indecent unless it could be proven that the subject had suffered. 'Our amendment [to the proposed law] places the onus of proof on the prosecution to show that the child was actually harmed,' wrote Harman."

Channel 4 News reports Harman’s reaction to Daily Mail allegations: "Harriet Harman expresses 'regret' over links between a 1970s paedophile rights group and a civil liberties charity she used to work for." It quotes her statement: "They have accused me of being an apologist for child sex abuse, of supporting a vile paedophile organisation, of having a relaxed attitude to paedophilia and of watering down child pornography laws. These are horrific allegations and I strongly deny them, all of them." A spokesperson is quoted: "She regrets the existence of PIE and she regrets their involvement with NCCL before she joined, although it was immaterial to her work."

The Independent reported that Harman said she had "always opposed child pornography" and had "never supported PIE," rejecting the allegation that she was an apologist for child abuse. The article covered the controversy over her former role at NCCL and the documents cited by critics.

In a Sky News interview clip description discussing the same controversy, Harman is described as defending her safeguarding record amid claims about historical NCCL documents. The post foregrounds that she has been associated with campaigning on child sexual abuse victim protection: it quotes the Home Secretary saying the Government "will leave no stone unturned for victims of child sexual abuse," in a context where Harman is presented as a co-host and long-time advocate on such issues, not as someone claiming adult sex with children causes no harm.

A Reddit discussion thread on "Harriet Harman's infamous Newsnight interview" quotes from NCCL material associated with Harman’s tenure: "it suggested reducing the age of consent and argued that 'childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult result in no identifiable damage'." Commenters debate whether this position and Harman’s later legal arguments imply a belief that adult-child sexual relations cause no harm, but the quoted phrase is presented as from the NCCL response rather than from a direct personal statement by Harman.

On her website, Harman discusses child protection more broadly in an article about social services and family courts. She writes about "the rights of children not to be sexually abused" and stresses that "any child who is used for the sexual gratification of adults counts as an abused child and needs protecting" (language consistent with her public stance reported elsewhere). The piece emphasises safeguarding and the potential injustice of wrongly removing children from parents, but does not contain any statement that adult sexual relations with children causes no harm.

A Facebook post by The Canary UK, critical of Harriet Harman, alleges that she wrote that child pornography was only indecent if harm could be proven. The post states in summary form: "Harman, Starmer's now advisor on women and girls, previously wrote that child porn was only indecent if proven that the children had suffered" and commenters accuse her of "making excuses for Harman's disgusting words saying child abuse may not harm children." The post appears to be an interpretation of NCCL’s legal submissions rather than citing a direct quote where Harman personally states that adults having sexual relations with children causes no harm.

An article from The Canary’s Skwawkbox section, attacking Keir Starmer’s appointment of Harriet Harman, describes her as a "paedophile-enabler" and references her NCCL work in the 1970s. It states that she was legal officer for NCCL when it was affiliated to PIE and claims she supported positions on child pornography that required proof of harm before indecency could be found. The article is strongly critical and frames her past legal arguments as excusing harm, but does not provide a direct quote where she personally says that adults having sexual relations with children cause no harm; instead it relies on characterisations of NCCL’s submissions and the "childhood sexual experiences ... no identifiable damage" line as evidence.

A contemporary news commentary (noted in other coverage) describes NCCL’s 1970s position in strong terms: it refers to NCCL’s official response to sex law reform as a "Lolita’s Charter" and quotes the line "childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult result in no identifiable damage." The commentary traces this to NCCL documents rather than a direct personal quotation from Harriet Harman, and uses it to criticise Labour figures’ past association with NCCL and PIE, contributing to the later political claim that Harman supposedly said adult-child sex causes no harm.