Federal Appeals Court: "Tattoos are free speech protected by Constitution" 04:12 PM

Wonderful news on the tattoo law front! The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals just ruled, in tattooing is purely expressive activity fully protected by the First Amendment, and that a total ban on such activity is not a reasonable 'time, place, or manner' restriction."



This is huge and it's implications may go beyond zoning restrictions and even affect cases related to employment discrimination, for example. I just read the full decision and will give y'all the highlights but first some background to the case:



Last May, in our



Wrong! according to today's published decision by the Appellate Court, and they really rip it apart.



So, I'll actually use my law license for some good today and break it all down for you. I'm picking out some key elements that may help other tattoo artists facing similar restrictions on doing business and hopefully we'll see more wins as well. Wonderful news on the tattoo law front! The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals just ruled, in Johnny Anderson v. City of Hermosa Beach , that "This is huge and it's implications may go beyond zoning restrictions and even affect cases related to employment discrimination, for example. I just read the full decision and will give y'all the highlights but first some background to the case:Last May, in our First Amendment & Tattoos post , we first mentioned the Appellate Court agreeing to review the case of Johnny Andersen of Yer Cheat'n Heart Tattoo against Hermosa Beach, CA. Johnny wanted to relocate to Hermosa Beach but was denied because zoning laws prohibited tattooing in the city. He sued in 2006 and lost because the lower court found that tattooing was a service and "'not sufficiently imbued with elements of communication" to be protected as speech.according to today's published decision by the Appellate Court, and they really rip it apart.So, I'll actually use my law license for some good today and break it all down for you. I'm picking out some key elements that may help other tattoo artists facing similar restrictions on doing business and hopefully we'll see more wins as well.

* First, what's this "sufficiently imbued with elements of communication" stuff? Well, as the Court notes, the First Amendment includes pure speech but it also protects conduct that's intended to send a message that most people would understand, like burning a draft card. However, the government has a "generally freer hand" in restricting this conduct than it has in pure speech. So, the Court first looked at whether tattooing is pure speech, that is, "a purely expressive activity" like writing, or whether it's conduct that just contains an expressive component. Here's what the three-judge panel said:



"The tattoo itself, the process of tattooing, and even the business of tattooing are not expressive conduct but purely expressive activity fully protected by the First Amendment."



Woohoo! Here's more:



There appears to be little dispute that the tattoo itself is pure First Amendment "speech." The Supreme Court has consistently held that "the Constitution looks beyond written or spoken words as mediums of expression." [...] We do not profess to understand the work of tattoo artists to the same degree as we know the finely wrought sketches of Leonardo da Vinci or Albrecht Durer, but we can take judicial notice of the skill, artistry, and care that modern tattooists have demonstrated.



So now, federal judges have taken note of how tattooing has risen to a level of fine art. Could this decision get any better? Yes, it does.





* In discussing how the process of tattooing is "inextricably intertwined with the purely expressive product (the tattoo), and is itself entitled to full First Amendment protection," the Court also makes note of the client-tattoo artist relationship. The lower court made a big deal out of the customer having control over the tattoo design, thereby making it less expressive conduct. The Appellate Court disagreed, saying that, following such an argument, Michelangelo's painting of the Sistine Chapel is not expressive because it was commissioned. In fact, both the client and artists are engaging in expressive conduct in the tattoo process. [Also, the Court said that, just because someone is paying for a tattoo, doesn't make the business of tattooing less expressive either.]





* Ok, now that the Court decided that tattooing is protected by the First Amendment, they next had to decide whether Hermosa Beach's total ban on tattooing was a constitutional restriction on free expression. In this particular case, because the content of the speech isn't banned -- for example, there was no ban on religious tattoos, just tattooing in general -- the test is to determine whether the City's regulation is a reasonable "time, place, or manner" restriction on protected speech, and that it is "narrowly tailored" to serve the government's interest. There's no argument in this case that the City has a real interest in regulating tattooing because of health and safety concerns. The argument is whether a total ban on tattooing is too broad to achieve this interest.



Hermosa Beach basically said (paraphrased of course), Dude, we only have one health inspector in Los Angeles County for 300 shops and over 850 [!!!] tattooists. We just don't have the dough to regulate everyone "including the many who, like Plaintiff, are self-taught and operating in backrooms and basements". That last part I didn't paraphrase. Did the City just call Andersen a scratcher?



Anyway, the Court said (also paraphrased), Well that's too convenient, Hermosa Beach! You can't ban an entire medium of expression just because it would take some time and money to regulate it, especially when there are no "alternative channels."





* Alternative channels? Is that like



I know! The Court found this equally ridiculous. Here's what they said, beautifully so:



Like music, tattooing is "one of the oldest forms of human expression," as well as one of the world's most universally practiced forms of artwork. And it has increased in prevalence and sophistication in recent years.

[...]

Most importantly, a permanent tattoo "often carries a message quite distinct" from displaying the same words or picture through some other medium, and "provide[s] information about the identity of the 'speaker'." A tattoo suggests that the bearer of the tattoo is highly committed to the message he is displaying: by permanently engrafting a phrase or image onto his skin, the bearer of the tattoo suggests that the phrase or image is so important to him that he has chosen to display the phrase or image every day for the remainder of his life...Finally, the pain involved in producing a permanent tattoo is significant to its bearer as well.

[...]

These elements are not present--or, at least, not nearly to the same degree--in the case of a temporary tattoo, a traditional canvas, or a Tshirt. Thus, we disagree with the City that "[t]here is nothing inherently or distinctly expressive about rendering . . . designs on the skin" using the ink-injection method.



To sum it all up:



Tattoos, tattooing and making money from tattooing is constitutionally protected.

General tattoo bans are not the way to regulate tattooing. Restrictions must be specifically tailored to the purpose of protecting public health and safety.

Getting a tattoo is not like airbrushing a t-shirt.

Judges in LA think tattoos are pretty.

And I am no longer that ashamed to be a part of the legal profession.

Well, as the Court notes, the First Amendment includes pure speech but it also protects conduct that's intended to send a message that most people would understand, like burning a draft card. However, the government has a "generally freer hand" in restricting this conduct than it has in pure speech. So, the Court first looked at whether tattooing is pure speech, that is, "a purely expressive activity" like writing, or whether it's conduct that just contains an expressive component. Here's what the three-judge panel said:Woohoo! Here's more:So now, federal judges have taken note of how tattooing has risen to a level of fine art. Could this decision get any better? Yes, it does.* In discussing how the process of tattooing is "inextricably intertwined with the purely expressive product (the tattoo), and is itself entitled to full First Amendment protection," the Court also makes note of the client-tattoo artist relationship. The lower court made a big deal out of the customer having control over the tattoo design, thereby making it less expressive conduct. The Appellate Court disagreed, saying that, following such an argument, Michelangelo's painting of the Sistine Chapel is not expressive because it was commissioned. In fact, both the client and artists are engaging in expressive conduct in the tattoo process. [Also, the Court said that, just because someone is paying for a tattoo, doesn't make the business of tattooing less expressive either.]* Ok, now that the Court decided that tattooing is protected by the First Amendment, they next had to decide whether Hermosa Beach's total ban on tattooing was a constitutional restriction on free expression. In this particular case, because the content of the speech isn't banned -- for example, there was no ban on religious tattoos, just tattooing in general -- the test is to determine whether the City's regulation is a reasonable "time, place, or manner" restriction on protected speech, and that it is "narrowly tailored" to serve the government's interest. There's no argument in this case that the City has a real interest in regulating tattooing because of health and safety concerns. The argument is whether a total ban on tattooing is too broad to achieve this interest.Hermosa Beach basically said (paraphrased of course),. That last part I didn't paraphrase. Did the City just call Andersen a scratcher?Anyway, the Court said (also paraphrased),* Alternative channels? Is that like Logo TV or FX [Sons of Anarchy rules!] ? Not really. The term refers to the need to have other ways to communicate if certain speech is restricted. The City argued, essentially, that those who want a tattoo of a design or words can just get henna or a t-shirt or poster that expresses the same thing. They said that nothing is stopping tattooists from airbrushing their art on canvas...The Court found this equally ridiculous. Here's what they said, beautifully so: posted by:

Marisa Kakoulas

CATEGORY: TAGS:

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Hermosa Beach

Johnny Anderson v. City of Hermosa Beach

Law

Tattoo

Tattoo Law

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

TAGS: 12 Comments





connect with us archives BY MONTH July 2016 (3) June 2016 (5) May 2016 (5) April 2016 (8) March 2016 (10) February 2016 (10) January 2016 (9) December 2015 (9) November 2015 (9) October 2015 (10) September 2015 (10) August 2015 (9) July 2015 (11) June 2015 (14) May 2015 (11) April 2015 (13) March 2015 (15) February 2015 (12) January 2015 (17) December 2014 (17) November 2014 (15) October 2014 (17) September 2014 (16) August 2014 (13) July 2014 (13) June 2014 (16) May 2014 (17) April 2014 (13) March 2014 (15) February 2014 (19) January 2014 (17) December 2013 (16) November 2013 (16) October 2013 (20) September 2013 (18) August 2013 (19) July 2013 (18) June 2013 (15) May 2013 (21) April 2013 (18) March 2013 (19) February 2013 (19) January 2013 (21) December 2012 (20) November 2012 (19) October 2012 (20) September 2012 (18) August 2012 (22) July 2012 (22) June 2012 (22) May 2012 (19) April 2012 (19) March 2012 (16) February 2012 (19) January 2012 (20) December 2011 (27) November 2011 (23) October 2011 (22) September 2011 (20) August 2011 (19) July 2011 (25) June 2011 (20) May 2011 (19) April 2011 (20) March 2011 (25) February 2011 (22) January 2011 (20) December 2010 (25) November 2010 (25) October 2010 (21) September 2010 (28) August 2010 (21) July 2010 (24) June 2010 (36) May 2010 (25) April 2010 (27) March 2010 (26) February 2010 (27) January 2010 (30) December 2009 (26) November 2009 (30) October 2009 (33) September 2009 (34) August 2009 (24) July 2009 (31) June 2009 (22) May 2009 (26) April 2009 (25) March 2009 (28) February 2009 (1) BY CATEGORY Announcements (109) Events (207) Music (34) News (184) Shopping (159) Tattoo (901) Tattoo Artists (230) advertisement





