The U.K. government has announced that it will soon be a crime to photograph mothers breastfeeding their children in public. Limiting the right to photograph in public places could be seen as an attack on freedom of expression, so is this law justified?
A campaign led by mother Julia Cooper has prompted a proposal for legislation as part of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill that is currently being discussed by the U.K. Parliament. As noted by Justice Secretary Dominic Raab, the new laws would help to prevent women from being “pestered, whether it’s for self-gratification or for harassment purposes.”
MP Stella Creasy celebrated the announcement, tweeting:
While women who have experienced harassment will welcome the move, some will question whether this is another small step towards prohibiting freedom of expression and shifting the widely-accepted expectation that if you are in a public place, you can be seen and documented, regardless of what you are doing. Government attempts to place restrictions on what can and cannot be documented in public are regularly met with opposition, often seen as creeping criminalization that can gather pace unless they are fought at every step.
Understandably, photographers can instinctively become defensive when their freedom to create images is under threat. Some use the right to photograph in public as an excuse for intrusive, inappropriate behavior, justifying the harassment through claims of artistic expression, or simply because they are entitled to do it. For them, the legal entitlement outweighs any ethical concerns, and the art world has a habit of celebrating these artists for being brave and edgy. If there are laws against photographing women as they breastfeed, is there a risk that intrusive photography targeting women more generally might be next on the list?
Holding a camera does not change someone’s justification for behaving inappropriately. If someone were in the bushes with a pair of binoculars and clearly picking out women in a park that were breastfeeding, most citizens would expect the law to intervene. Swapping those binoculars for a camera doesn’t mean that the behavior is suddenly justified. Furthermore, cameras — whether it’s a huge DSLR with a telephoto lens or a smartphone held in someone’s face — can be used as tools for harassment and abuse. Simply because these tools can produce art or journalism does not by default override a person’s use of those tools to deliberately harass someone.
Headlines such as “photographing breastfeeding to be made illegal” and Creasy’s tweet aren’t helpful as the details of this legislation reveal that this is not a blanket ban. For example, if a mother is breastfeeding at a protest or a rally and is included in a photograph of a broader scene, the photographer is not suddenly going to be charged with an offense. The law is written to be quite specific: for a photographer to be deemed guilty, they “must be acting for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification or of humiliating, alarming, or distressing the victim.” The camera and the photograph do not determine whether a crime is committed; instead, it is the behavior and the intent.
Whether intent can be proven will be down to a court to decide. Photographer and law student Martin McNeil offered me his thoughts. As part of a conversation on whether this legislation can exempt certain situations, McNeil pointed out that it’s “worth keeping in mind that laws are written by lawyers with the express intention of being interpreted by other lawyers and the judiciary. Anything not expressly stated is thus open to extremely wide debate and could be problematic for someone down the line.”
Legal restrictions on the freedom to document through any medium should be fought, but in this instance, it’s worth looking beyond the headlines and tweets and examining what this legislation means and the protection that it affords women and those breastfeeding in public. It remains to be seen how this legislation is interpreted, but it's worth noting: documenting is not the crime, harassment is.
As noted in the very short post, the law is deeming the photographing breast-feeding mothers in a perverted or shaming way illegal. Documentary purposes are still legal.
I think this law is catering to a specific populous. It should be covered under sexual assault laws instead. But I do not practice law, so what do I know…
Then surely the circumstances you mention are already illegal and do not need a specific law... it is a slippery slope... mandates anyone?
Where does it end when you criminalize merely being impolite? If a nursing mother wants privacy in public space she covers up with a baby blanket. Government intervention and protection is not needed.
.
Having your photograph taken steals your soul -- not sure about selfies. I read it on the internet.
https://www.firstpost.com/tech/news-analysis/cameras-steal-souls-new-res...
this comment section is gunna be goood lol
You're gonna need a bigger bag.
Who the hell would want to take a photo of someone else’s partner breastfeeding? Let alone whether they are legally allowed or not. Massive wtf for me on this one.
It's human behaviour; not my thing, but I get it.
I just think there are a million other things to photograph, so outside of ‘getting a reaction’ I have no idea why someone would do it. It’s akin to those street photographers who photograph homeless people, sure it’s legal, but no decent photographer needs to stoop that low.
You're right, there are better things to photograph, so I don't think this is to protect mothers from decent photographers. It's to protect them from creeps pointing a phone at them from the opposite seat on the bus.
Jeremy, if it is so natural, unsexual, and there is nothing to hide, why is a person who points a phone a creep?
I understand it's rude, but so is sticking out your naked breast.
The complaint is a double standard.
To those that believe in the "if in public.." argument, would you still hold on to the argument if a photographer was lying down and taking up-skirt pictures of women in a public park?
We all have a right to privacy regarding the use of our photos. Yes, there are certain news/public interest worthy scenarios when this is given up, but that is an exception.
Apparently that's entirely different. See my exchange with Salty Creampuff above.
The person has her personal body parts covered and is not running around in panties. There is no comparison.
Just so we're clear.
You shouldn't let your children go out in public, because a peadophile may photograph them.
.
That's not really the point I'm making, @user bunchanumbers.
If you are going to appeal to legality, you are going to have a hard time. But as a practical matter, if you as a male take photos of random children, you'll likely find yourself in hospital after a father bashes your head into the concrete.
If you are in the US then said young "male" can press charges against the father for assault.
Yes, an my legal defence would be I believed that person to be a threat. Given that 12 of my peers would have to find I had an intention beyond reasonable doubt, I'm going to walk.
.
The offence is "assault" or "murder".
The Constitution constrains the conduct of the government.
Stop wasting my time.
.
Right on, mr constitutional law.
Let me repeat, for the terminally stupid. Constitutional law constrains the actions of the government.
You are either trolling, or have a room temperature IQ; to be fair, the two arent mutually exclusive.
.
I've now told you twice, the constitution constrains the conduct of the government.
It has nothing to do with criminal law.
.
Rights with respect to the government.
Don't all you guys do basic law in high school?
.
Aww, don't be like that, not when we were getting along so well.
...and the sales of super zoom cameras with the equivelent of a 2000mm lens may increase. Discretion is the better part of a criminal record.
Forgive me for being a little confounded by this law. Women are publicly breastfeeding and people with camera are photographing them. The women are angry and feel harrassed. That is what this sounds like.
Interesting how a simple solution is completely ignored. Use discretion. Cover up. Generations of women have in the name of protecting their own privacy.
I have the right to breastfeed in public but really I'm embarrassed about it and don't want anyone watching so I'm going to make a law.
The comment about someone watching with binoculars amused me. Is that really a reason to call the law? I watched someone in public intently and I'm now arrested?
The proponents of indiscreet breastfeeding consistently argue that there is nothing sexual about it, therefore none of these scenarios could be perceived as pervy.
Maybe there is a factor that was left out of this story.
Confounding.
.
Apparently I *really* have to dumb it down for you,
The attitude is that it women to hide their skin because men are incapable of controlling themselves.
The arguments are the same, from 1920s swimsuits, to burqa, to any other similar attitude/law. You think you're different, but you're not.
However, to restate the analogy, if this is a thing where responsibity falls on victims, you better keep your children inside; or are we saying that's different, because reasons?
.
Well, that was a clumsy straw man.
Whatever.
.
I'm not "upset"; stupidity is vaguely irritating.
Did it make you feel better to down vote all my images?
No. The attitude is that women get to do what they want without consequences. Being stared at is hardly a crime.
If they are embarrassed or put off by being stared at they are hypocrites.
Breastfeeding is not a sacred ritual, it's just a bodily function. It deserves nothing more than accommodation.
As for flopping it out in the public square, it's a bit undignified, but who cares? It seems the women do.
That's not the purpose of the law, big guy.
I'm getting a little grumpy dealing with people who either can't be bothered or lack capacity.
Peace.
As noted by Justice Secretary Dominic Raab, the new laws would help to prevent women from being “pestered, whether it’s for self-gratification or for harassment purposes.”
It's thought police.
Red, I was polite, now I'm going to be a little more direct.
I'm sick of trying to talk to people have have zero experience or education in law, and therefore have no clue wtf they're talking about (that's on me for commenting when I knew better. I mean, you guys press shutter buttons, and the lawyers among you know better than to comment; I doubt they are even foolish enough to read this dumpster fire).
Go waste someone else's time.
Edit: it's fascinating how you people all have anonymous accounts.
Let me explain one of the basics of modern legislative drafting.
When you look at the instrument, it will have a purposive section at the beginning.
Of all the things I could take a photograph of, a woman breast feeding is not one of them, I could write a long drawn out response but I think this will be enough.
You have to take this situation in hand and nipple it in the bud, otherwise Flickr will be full of breast feeding photos.
User bunchanumbers is probably a pretty decent photographer; I draw this inference from the fact he is argumentative and has a score of 2.9.
To the point, when you are argumentative, people will down vote all your images. My inference is that someone (or more than one person) down voted his images, he got upset, pulled his photos, and anonymised his profile.
The shame of it is, he feels it's appropriate to do the same thing to others.
Responding to ridiculous comments by someone who shows a clear lack of a fundamental understanding regarding the constitution and laws is hardly being "argumentative".
But you know what, you do you.
None of that means anything to me as you still clearly lack an understanding of constitutional rights.
"Go away."
Gladly.
And none of that addresses the fact you think it's perfectly OK to try and wound others by down voting their work.
You're pathetic.
Where can I view your images as you keep talking about them for some reason? I would like to see the work you are referring to.