[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?

[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.

[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”.

[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.

[A_perfect_lady]

How about nasty tattoos of Mohammed?