Tattoo as Art?

Tattoo artist says city ban infringes on his First Amendment rights

California: often touted as the land of liberal debauchery, where supposedly anything goes. In the city of Hermosa, however, tattooing does not go anywhere within city limits. The city says the ban is due to public health, safety, and welfare risks. Johnny Anderson, a tattoo artist who would like to move his business into Hermosa from his current, unsafe location, says the ban prohibits freedom of expression. The basis: tattooing is an art form, and art is protected under the First Amendment. Anderson is taking his case to a federal appeals court, where it will be the first such case determined by judiciary.

So, herein lies the question: is, as Anderson states, tattooing a form of art, personalized for the consumer on the spot? Or is it, as the city insists, just a public service, and a dangerous one at that? Do individuals who get tattoos really express who they are and what they believe in the permanent ink on their bodies, or are they simply trying to upset the status quo? Does the intent behind any given tattoo really matter to the case under review?

I know many people with permanent ink on their bodies. They are factory workers, security guards, mental health professionals, telemarketers, librarians, even law enforcement officers. Everyone of them thought long and hard about each design chosen. The designs were most often related to profession, loved ones, and spiritual beliefs—things that defined who they were. The tattooing professionals who did the inking worked hard to personalize designs, and to tattoo the designs on skin flawlessly the first time (there are no erasers with tattoo ink). If these are not signs of personal expression and art, both protected under the First Amendment, what are they? If they are protected, should a city be allowed to get away with banning the practice of this art within city limits? In my opinion, not in the slightest.

Censorship and Fear

For my first post this week I have been trying to decide between two news stories that really drew my attention. I have finally decided I am unable to choose between them, so I offer up both to the light of intellectual freedom.

First:
School Library Journal recently reported on a high school in New Jersey that pulled a book from the school library’s shelves following complaints by members of a conservative organization. The article can be found at the SLJ website. The editor’s blog, with additional information, can be found here.

Any time I hear about well-reviewed, age-appropriate books being removed from any library because someone got uptight about them not conforming to their religious standards, my blood starts to boil. The books are there so everyone can find something that works for them, not so everyone is satisfied with every book there. The fact that the school board pulled the book from library shelves without including a logical rationale or even the process by which they considered the request is reprehensible. I am curious to know if anyone has read the book in question; based on the available information above on the Barnes & Noble website, it sounds like a good resource to help GLBT teens who are often on the fringes of our society until they reach adulthood and find a real community of their own. It saddens me that the book appears to be out of print; I hope Amy Sonnie and her publisher decide to update the mentioned resource section and republish it so a new generation of GLBT youth have the opportunity to realize they really are not alone.

Second:
Can one country’s repressive government affect freedom of thought, speech, and publication all over the world? It would appear so, based on an essay published by the New York Times last week.

Even the United States Library of Congress appears to have jumped on the “Let’s not offend the Chinese Government” bandwagon. Should American or Canadian nonprofit organizations, governmental institutions, or publishers be this scared of any foreign government? Our government and our people are great at speaking out against the atrocities perpetrated by terrorists in the Middle East, or war lords in Africa; why should we not also speak out about censorship imposed by one government that affects the whole world? How exactly does one country that has only relatively recently become a real player in world politics get powerful enough to incite so much fear?