Top Arizona court rules tattooing is protected speech

[jimmy olsen]

Hmm...
I am inclined to agree.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48948732/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

Top Arizona court rules tattooing is protected speech
Ruling comes in zoning dispute over city's denial of license for parlor

By Tim Gaynor

Arizona's Supreme Court, stepping into a zoning dispute over a tattoo parlor, ruled on Friday that tattooing was a constitutionally protected form of free speech, the first such decision by any state high court in the country, lawyers said.

The ruling stemmed from a dispute between tattoo artists Ryan and Laetitia Coleman and the Phoenix valley city of Mesa, which denied the pair a business permit three years ago to set up shop in a local strip mall.

The Colemans, an American-French couple who live and work in the French city of Nice, originally applied to Mesa in July 2008 for a business permit, and city zoning staff recommended it be issued to them the following February.

After a public hearing, the board voted to recommend the council deny the permit, arguing the shop was "not appropriate for the location or in the best interest of the neighborhood," according to court documents.

The Colemans filed a lawsuit in 2009 alleging violations to their rights to free speech, due process and equal protection under both the U.S. and state constitutions. The suit was dismissed by the Maricopa County Superior Court.

"Recognizing that tattooing involves constitutionally protected speech, we hold that the superior court erred by dismissing the complaint as a matter of law," the state Supreme Court said in its ruling.

The ruling does not mean that Mesa must allow the Colemans to open their tattoo parlor, only that the court erred in dismissing their suit. It noted that cities had the right to regulate business location through zoning ordinances and that the "factual dispute" between the parties would have to be determined at trial.

The Colemans have sought a ruling allowing them to open their parlor and want compensation for business lost over the past three years.

Stay informed with the latest headlines; sign up for our newsletter

"It is very significant ... Tattoo artists are often subjected to enormous regulation, especially in terms of operating their businesses," their attorney, Clint Bolick, told Reuters.

"As a result we now know that in Arizona, tattoo artists will be able to ply their trade free from excessive regulation," he added.

The question of whether tattooing is protected speech had been litigated in other U.S. states with mixed outcomes, Bolick said, adding the Arizona decision was the first by a state Supreme Court to affirm it was protected speech.

[Martinus]

This is stupid beyond belief.

[Darth Wagtaros]

The Pole is correct.

[The Brain]

Which businesses do not involve constitutionally protected speech?

[dps]

Meh.  Having tattoos, yeah, I think would be protected under freedom of expression, but operating a tattoo parlor would be subject to regulation just like operating any other business would be.

[Razgovory]

It would have thought it would be a zoning issue.

[Jaron]

I don't see what is so silly about it. It still has to be addressed by zoning regulations. I agree a mall is no place for a tattoo parlor. The best locations are near bars and pool halls.

And it's good for the Arizona people to see their court system is capable of a progressive thought in an era marked by barbarism.

[grumbler]

I don't see what is so silly about it. It still has to be addressed by zoning regulations. I agree a mall is no place for a tattoo parlor. The best locations are near bars and pool halls.

Bars and pool halls are located in strip malls like the one the tattoo parlor folks wanted to locate in.  I don't see why a strip mall would be an inappropriate place for a tattoo parlor - it's not like you could lower the image that strip malls have!

[Jaron]

I don't see what is so silly about it. It still has to be addressed by zoning regulations. I agree a mall is no place for a tattoo parlor. The best locations are near bars and pool halls.

Bars and pool halls are located in strip malls like the one the tattoo parlor folks wanted to locate in. 

Well....not in Utah.

[Eddie Teach]

There's no trouble in Salt Lake City. 

[DontSayBanana]

Ugh.  Nasty precedent to set.  If courts start affirming it as protected speech, HR managers everywhere are going to be shitting bricks, since Hot Topic and auto repair shops are about the only workplaces left that don't ban visible tattoos.

[jimmy olsen]

Ugh.  Nasty precedent to set.  If courts start affirming it as protected speech, HR managers everywhere are going to be shitting bricks, since Hot Topic and auto repair shops are about the only workplaces left that don't ban visible tattoos.

Meh, in a couple of years everyone would get used to it. Not a big deal.

[Martinus]

This is an equivalent of saying you can open a printing house in the middle of a national park since printing books is obviously protected speech (much more than making tattoos is).

But I agree with what some other people said - if tattoos as such are regarded as protected speech, how does it square with bans on visible tattoos in many professions. I mean, unlike actual speech speech (which, you know, involves actually saying things in print or orally, as opposed to spending cash or having a butterfly branded on your ass), which can be "suspended" during working hours with no lasting harm to someone's rights (i.e. an employer may expect you not to engage in political activism during working hours for example), you can't switch your tattoos on and off. So this will be a mess if it is allowed to stand.

[Razgovory]

Marty, we've talked about you making analogies...

[jimmy olsen]

You missed an important paragraph at the end Mart.

The ruling does not mean that Mesa must allow the Colemans to open their tattoo parlor, only that the court erred in dismissing their suit. It noted that cities had the right to regulate business location through zoning ordinances and that the "factual dispute" between the parties would have to be determined at trial.