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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is an interesting concept. I often think those individuals with numerous tattoos, especially visible ones, are stereotyped against in our society. I have never considered getting a tattoo because I cannot think of anything that I would want to be on my body for the rest of my life, not because I have a problem with them. I think as long as the company is free of health violations and are causing no disturbances they should be allowed to move their business into Hermosa. Tattoos are not against the law, so why are they so worried? The judge's comment of “not sufficiently imbued with elements of communication” is just astounding to me, almost segregational. Sounds like Hermosa would rather be judgemental than progressive which is odd to me that this is becoming a big deal in California of all places!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhat jumps out to me about this is the critical difference between HAVING a tattoo in Hermosa (not illegal) and GETTING a tattoo in Hermosa (illegal). They aren't prohibiting the display of body art--which, I believe, is what would be constitutionally protected. The act of applying ink to skin by needle is what is being banned within city limits, because of purported health risks. If there have been widespread problems with sanitation in this city, I can see the rationale behind this. Granted, I think stricter permit requirements for tattoo parlors would probably be more effective than an outright ban. But local governments enact ordinances all the time that bar certain types of establishments (such as strip clubs, pawn shops, gun shops, and extended stay hotels) from operating in specified zones in the name of public welfare. I don't see how this is any different. It may still be unconstitutional, but if anything I see a potential violation of property rights, not a violation of free speech.
ReplyDeleteA federal judge called tattoos “not sufficiently imbued with elements of communication” to merit constitutional protection. I'd love to hear what he meant by that.
ReplyDeleteI take Carly's point that this is about the tattoo artist's right to operate and not the right of the customer to have a tattoo. Also, of course, not all art is protected, such as graffiti. Still, if designating tattooing as "art" would make it protected, which is what the judge strongly implied, I don't see how on earth tattoo artists aren't making art.
Wow, this seems like a case of profiling, since officials are worried that it would create “aesthetic concerns." How exactly would it pose health risks? That's what licensing is for, they have to sterilize their instruments, etc.
ReplyDeleteYeah, this is rubbish... completely compromising one's right to free expression. They say that it is for health reasons, so they should simply require that tattoo studios be inspected by the proper officials. I don't have any tats myself, but I really don't think anyone should be regulating what one can do to one's own body. If people walk into the studio to get a tattoo, they know that there are possible health risks. Even if the studio is clean, the tattooed area could still possibly become infected. This should all be their own choice, not the state's (or city's).
ReplyDeleteIf they are sterilizing their instruments and using fresh ink for each customer, I don't see where the parlor is posing a health risk. A tattoo is a personal statement and a work of art. The judge's statement that tattoos are “not sufficiently imbued with elements of communication” is a joke. If our clothing choices can be a form of communication, why can't body art be a form as well?
ReplyDelete