How long before photography is made completely illegal?

[foodpoison]

Some seriousness to this post, as well as a few jokes.

Firstly, I'll start with an analogy.
Marijuana was freely available over the counter in pharmacies in the early 1900's. At the time it was seen as being perfectly acceptable.
100 years later and it has been made into a Class B drug - the second 'worst' form of drug available.

So the way England is going, with the constant 'photographers are most probably terrorists' thing going on, I wouldn't be surprised if photography was eventually made illegal, with Street Photography being made illegal first, followed by any other photography in public places - i.e. macro in the woods, portraits in fields.
Marijuana was deemed perfectly acceptable, as is photography (on the most part), but how long for?

Take this post as you will, and feel free to discuss, argue, disagree and agree with my point

(edit: I hope you don't think that I think that marijuana and photography are in any way similar. The only similar thing about them is that marijuana was acceptable, now it is effectively cursed, and photography was seen as fine, but if you have a big lens in public, you're a terrorist or a pedophile)

 

[Ian T]

I'm not sure marijuana illegality is the best analogy.

Still, you can well imagine photographers talking in private... "You mean, you actually did macro in the woods?! Damn, that must have been pretty scary."

 

[PsiFox]

I'm not sure marijuana illegality is the best analogy.

Still, you can well imagine photographers talking in private... "You mean, you actually did macro in the woods?! Damn, that must have been pretty scary."

Do you do CF or SD? Know what i mean!!!!!

 

[foodpoison]

I'm not sure marijuana illegality is the best analogy.

Still, you can well imagine photographers talking in private... "You mean, you actually did macro in the woods?! Damn, that must have been pretty scary."

Of course it isn't but it was the only thing I could think of at the time, since, while I don't smoke marijuana, I have friends who do, and the whole illegality thing is just absurd.

 

[foodpoison]

"I totally put it into M last night. It was pretty difficult to get used to, but the results were sooooooooo good.."

 

[Venomator]

I hope you don't think that I think that marijuana and photography are in any way similar. The only similar thing about them is that marijuana was acceptable

Oh I don't think you can say that actually ... ...

Of course it isn't but it was the only thing I could think of at the time, since, while I don't smoke marijuana, I have friends who do, and the whole illegality thing is just absurd.

Because I bet they can conjure up some weird and wonderful images as many of us with a camera can if your getting my drift ... :shrug:



... :nuts: ... : ...

 

[foodpoison]

 

[Toothie]

I don't think photography will became illegal any time soon, but its definitialy food for thought.

Over time many things become acceptable the unacceptable then acceptable again so it is difficult to say.

Im not sure photography is unacceptable but the whole world is scared about terrorism at the moment and espically how they use technology to carry it out and although terroists may not be running about with 300mm 2.8 lenses, they are using photos in their planning.

we just need to find the balance between freedom and protection which at the moment is a bit messed up.

 

[englandshottest2]

for the record...IS street photography (when not of kids) legal??

 

[Marcel]

Yes.
Its legal of kids too.

 

[Veracocha]

Photography will never be made illegal, it presents a perfectly good future opprtunity for a government to create some sort of tax based on usage/shots taken maybe.

 

[foodpoison]

And when the tax-per-shutter-release is introduced, I bet England's TPSR is substantially greater than anywhere else. But don't worry, it will be for the benefit of the environment.

 

[Deleted member 3428]

Photography will never be made illegal, it presents a perfectly good future opprtunity for a government to create some sort of tax based on usage/shots taken maybe.

Be quiet V, don't give them ideas, you never know who is looking.

 

[hepburn]

it presents a perfectly good future opprtunity for a government to create some sort of tax based on usage/shots taken maybe.

I think they've already done that via the cost of motoring. Has anyone else cut back on random drives to find new locations etc?

 

[foodpoison]

I have cut back on random drives, but bike rides are better for finding great photo ops anyway

 

[GarynLea]

If they banned photography, what would the supermarkets cover their unnecessary packaging with?

 

[foodpoison]

Advertisements for how dangerous everything is?

 

[Moadib]

There's an argument, which may or may not be convincing, depending upon one's experience, that a reason marijuana is illegal is because there's no profitable business case for it. In the case of beer, tobacco etc they need mass volume farming, and so can be readily controlled and taxed, and profit made. In the case of marijuana, it would be reasonably straightforward for people to grow what they need at home. Hence it fits the case for the state to control, but (crucially) with no-one to defend it (i.e. no-one with a voice that the state needs cares about).

In the case of photography there is a very large profit motive for many companies and layers of manufacture. In the case of illegality (i.e. total ban) there would be strong lobbying from those companies, to avoid their business model being stopped.

There's also the old army adage of "never give an order that will be refused" - in this case, never ban something you can't police. With the number of camera phones etc, how would it be policed.

Nah - far better to promote "photography" - get all the "citizens" to spy on each other. I love Big Brother! Honest!

 

[davidbridges]

hahaha photo tax! i think thats a new pointless tax waiting to be introduced