I took the photo above
in Oxford Street last week. Is everyone in it over 18? I have no
idea. Could I be arrested for posting it here? Not yet.
The argument over
photography in public spaces is in
the news again, with a proposal aimed at criminalising the
publication of photographs of children without parental consent about
to be debated by the House of Lords. If implemented, it would make
the documenting of everyday life in public places - a central feature
of photography since the medium was invented, and an integral part of
our collective historical record - a potentially illegal enterprise.
Musician Paul Weller
(ex-Jam, ex-Style Council) and his wife Hannah are campaigning to
change the law following their successful legal action in the High
Court over publication of photographs of their children in the Mail
Online last year. It doesn't seem to have dawned on them that their
victory in court indicates that the law as it stands is perfectly
capable of dealing with the problem, as pointed out by the National
Union of Journalists Photographers' Council in a response to the
launch of the Wellers' Campaign
for Children’s Privacy.
The central issues in
this and previous similar cases are deeply political, and much bigger
than the discomfort of celebrities, or the poor judgement of tabloid
editors. Freedom of the press, widely recognised as a cornerstone of
democracy, is the most obvious potential casualty. But what is, or is
not, permitted in the public sphere is also a reflection of
conflicting views on the nature of the society we wish to live in –
or even if we live in one at all. To turn Margaret Thatcher's often
quoted statement into a question: are there just individual men,
women and families, or is there such a thing as society? If the
latter, when we venture into the public realm we do so as citizens,
not as private individuals, whatever our age. We must not allow yet
another round of photo-paranoia to turn us into anything else.
