Tattoos as protected speech

Los Angeles Times / latimes.com ^ | September 14, 2010 | Los Angeles Times staff

[thecodont]

Mention the 1st Amendment and an array of images come to mind: a printing press, a protest sign, a street-corner preacher, the fingers of a citizen journalist pecking out a bulletin for the blogosphere. Now there is another icon of free expression: the illustrated man (or woman).

Last week the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled — correctly — that tattoos are a form of protected expression and that the city of Hermosa Beach may not impose a blanket ban on tattoo parlors. The decision arose from a challenge by a tattooist to the city's municipal code, which allows a diverse group of commercial operations — including "adult businesses," gun shops and fortunetelling establishments — to set up shop, but excludes tattoo parlors.

In a majority opinion that sometimes reads like a paean to the art of the tattoo, Judge Jay S. Bybee concluded that tattoos — and by extension the tattoo business — are a "purely expressive activity" covered by the 1st Amendment.

[thecodont]

Opinion is here.

Johnny Anderson v. City of Hermosa Beach

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/09/09/08-56914.pdf

[Doogle]

"guess I'm good with my new burning Koran tat"

[DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis]

So would a tattoo of a burning Koran be protected too?

[thecodont]

The original article was an editorial.

Now think: if Justice Breyer says the act of burning a Koran isn’t a free expression of opinion protected by the First Amendment, perhaps the act of wearing a TATTOO of burning a Koran would be protected?

[DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis]

Aw man, you beat me to it... :)

[STONEWALLS]

...for the life of me I can’t figure out the modern craze of getting tattoos...some of those people on LA Ink look like they’re more into self-mutilation than ‘art’

[mnehring]

I think this goes beyond speech, tattoos are an express of the ownership of the individual. It is a core fundamental principal.

[Doogle]

:)

[mnehring]

Think of it as the ultimate rejection of Big Brother and collectivism; the one thing they can’t own is your skin.

[sean327]

I have no problem with this ruling. The tattoo industry is not the same as it was in our parents day. The industry has cleaned itself up pretty good over the last decade, and has pretty much become mainstream. Hell I saw a 60 year old woman walking into the grocery store a couple of weeks ago with a “tramp stamp”.

[Bigg Red]

IMO, tattoos are dirty looking, especially those on the neck.

[null and void]

Think of it as the ultimate rejection of Big Brother and collectivism; the one thing they can’t own is your skin.

I suppose so.

I guess all the future lampshades think the same thing...

[bitterohiogunclinger]

“I saw a 60 year old woman walking into the grocery store a couple of weeks ago with a “tramp stamp”.”

Justification for banning the practice in itself....

[sean327]

Tattoos have alot of different meaning for different folks. All 4 of my tattoos have a story, and bring me back great memories. My first on was a USMC on my right bicep. I got that one in 1985 at Zekes on Court Street in Jacksonville NC.
My 2nd one was an eagle with a US Marines banner in it’s beak and “Death Before Dishonor” incribed around it on my left bicep. I got that one in Twenty Nine Palms CA in 1987.

My 3rd one says MOM on my right forearm. Got that one in Twenty Nine Palms also in 1987. I was bet a 12 pack of beer that I wouldn’t do it. Suckers!!
My 4th one is my wife’s name on my left forearm. I got that one in Phuket Thialand in 1993.
Each one reminds me of the places I have been and the great Marines I met along the way. I do not regret getting any of them.

[AndyTheBear]

I think the idea of the freedom of speech is to cover the expression of content. Tattoos are about a medium not content. Also the first Amendment is a federal restriction, not a local one. For example I think it applies to the federal government making a law that I may not criticize high taxes. However it would not apply to a local city making a law that I can not scream my opinions whatever they are in the dead of night next to my neighbor's house as he tries to sleep.

But I am not an expert (except next to a liberal who no matter how educated are studiously constitutionally illiterate). Does anyone know where I might be wrong on this?

Arguing that local governments can not restrict a particular marginal median of expression because of the first amendment is as ridiculous as the ninth circuit or the LA Times I suppose.

That said, I think a local law banning tattoos is silly. But it just is not a First Amendment issue. Just a silly local law, which I suppose the local government has the power to uphold. The remedy is voting for a change, not sprinkling magic ferry dust on the federal Constitution and animating it to do something it has nothing to do with.

[pandoraou812]

While mine isn't quite on my neck just below it, I have never had anybody say it was anything but beautiful. Many tattoo haters on FR & I really don't know why. I stuck with butterflies, flowers & hummingbirds. Of course all mine are covered unless I want to show them & Dermablend works wonders. I don't judge what people do with their bodies anymore. It is what is on the inside that matters to me.

[SoldierDad]

Give them time.

[pandoraou812]

ping the list lol

[SoldierDad]

You and me both! Tattoos IMO make the person look trashy.

[Ditter]

Tattoos as remembrances of places traveled. Darn, why didn’t I think of that! All I did was take photos.