“Tattoo Parlors and the First Amendment”

Tattoos must be protected under the first amendment. A 2010 court ruled that tattoos are “sufficiently imbued with elements of communication to fall within the scope of the first and fourteenth amendments” (Anderson Vs. City of Hermosa Beach. 26. United States District Court for the Central District of California. 9 Sept. 2010. Print. ). In Anderson versus City of Hermosa Beach, Anderson sought to open a tattoo parlor but was denied the privilege to do so due to a municipal code. Anderson first brought the case to court in 2007, but the case was initially denied as unconstitutional and “not sufficiently imbued with the elements of communication.” The Hermosa City municipal ban on tattoos was unconstitutional as it prevented the freedom of expression of tattoo artists and the clients of tattoo artists, and that the ground tattoo parlors were banned on are very easily prevented.

The primary concern around tattoo parlors being opened up within the city was that used needles could carry and transmit blood-borne diseases such as HIV and Hepatitis C between tattoo clients. The spread of such diseases can be eradicated by simply mandating the use of uncontaminated and sterile needles. The …show more content…
City of Mesa, the plaintiffs wanted to open a branch of tattoo parlors, expanding from their home branch in Nice, France. The plaintiffs applied for a permit and at a February 2009 meeting, the city council voted 3-2 against allowing the Colemans to obtain a permit to open a tattoo parlor. The council ruled that the neighborhood the Colemans wanted to open the parlor in was an “inappropriate location”, despite the Colemans meeting all the requirements needed to obtain the permit. The council stated that the tattoo parlor may draw crime to the area and lower property values. Later in March 2009, the council once again voted after an appeal was brought. The council then voted 6-1 against allowing the permit to be