No so long ago, tattoo parlors generally were found only in seedy neighborhoods. Those who sported the artwork seemed to belong to one of two groups: Military men and women whose body art earned them a place in circus sideshows. No more. Tattoo parlors are now mainstream.
Evidence of their handiwork is easily visible on men and women in almost every public venue. Now, the art form even enjoys an exalted legal status. A federal appeals court recently ruled that tattoos, and by extension tattoo parlors, are a form of constitutionally protected free speech.
The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a unanimous opinion said that tattoos are a “purely expressive activity” and that a California city could not uniformly ban all tattoo parlors when it allowed other businesses, including fortune tellers and adult-oriented enterprises, to operate freely. Writing for a panel of three Republican appointees, Judge Jay S. Bybee described tattooing as “one of the oldest forms of human expression” and “one of the world’s most universally practiced forms of artwork.” As such, it deserves protection.
Given that criteria and Bybee’s statement that “a form of speech does not lose First Amendment protection based on the kind of surface it is applied to,” the ruling is sound. It does not mean, however, that tattoo parlors have free license to operate in any manner they choose.
Though the ruling found the across-the-board ban on the tattoo shops illegal, it does leave room for communities to adopt equitable rules to regulate their operation in the name of public health and safety. After all, unsterilized needles and other unsanitary practices can be responsible for transmitting HIV, hepatitis, tuberculosis and other diseases to unwitting clients.