There is an interesting free-speech case filed in South Carolina brought by a tattoo parlor challenging a state law that not only bars tattoo facilities from 1000 feet of churches, schools, or playgrounds, but also bans tattoos on the face, neck, or head. The case presents a common challenge for free speech advocates like myself. I have a visceral dislike for tattoos (particularly on the face), but I believe that they are a form of free expression. I, therefore, view the South Carolina law, S.C. Code Ann. § 44-34- 100, as unconstitutional under the First Amendment. (The litigants include claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the 14th Amendment).
The lawsuit was brought by Pacific Legal Foundation on behalf of a New York tattoo shop, Tiny Zaps, that is interested in opening a location in South Carolina. Tiny Zaps argues that “Tattoos are a form of artistic expression protected by the First Amendment. They communicate ideas, commemorate milestones, express beliefs, and allow people to present themselves to the world through permanent artwork created in collaboration with tattoo artists.”
It notes that the limits on store location make it difficult to open a store given the many churches, schools, and playgrounds in the state. However, it is the limits on the placement of the tattoo itself that is most interesting from my perspective. It argues that “Tattoo artists do not merely apply ink to skin. They collaborate with customers to create artistic works that often carry deeply personal expressive significance. The resulting artwork derives meaning not only from its design, but also from its placement on the body.”
It also argues that South Carolina has long been distinctly anti-tattoo expression: “South Carolina has long treated tattooing as disfavored expression. Until 2004, South Carolina was one of only two states that outlawed tattooing.”
In 2002, I wrote about a South Carolina challenge in the Los Angeles Times about the unconstitutionality of a state law barring tattooing. However, the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that “the danger associated with the activity of tattooing, whether artwork or not, is a legitimate reason to regulate it.” In my criticism of the Court, I disagreed with the premise that “a tattoo might be a form of protected expression, the ‘process’ of tattooing was not protected.” I noted that “this is akin to treating the Declaration of Independence as protected speech but not Benjamin Franklin’s printing of the document.”
As has noted, that case was declined by the Supreme Court in a disappointment for many of us, but later courts have reached contrary decisions from the South Carolina Supreme Court’s opinion in White v. State.
This will now give us a second bite at the apple to get this right. Despite my aversion to tattoos, they are clearly expressive. Indeed, some would say that they are downright educational:
“Lydia, oh Lydia, that encyclopydia
Oh Lydia the Queen of Tattoo
On her back is the Battle of Waterloo
Beside it the wreck of the Hesperus, too
And proudly above waves the red, white, and blue
You can learn a lot from Lydia”
In support of the free speech case, I call on the ultimate counsel for the challengers to explain the cultural and educational value of tattoos. I give you Groucho Marx:
It’s called a European “Nanny State” – we peasants are too dumb to govern ourselves so the petty politician running for the next election must intervene.
Even our ultra-conservative U.S. Supreme Court would overturn this foreign model of governing.
If you don’t ever want to be offended, never leave your house! Avoid public places at all costs – you might get offended by other people’s freedoms!
You are exactly right.
The Republicans, who have supermajorities in both state houses, legislate this blatantly unconstitutional nonsense because they are obsessed with creating a European style “Nanny State” as you put.
They “know what’s best” for everyone, and everyone just has to fall in line.
Don’t drink in the morning hours.
DustOff,
Annony seems very desperate to make this into something it is not. Putting blame on others who, like most of us, dont really care. Funny thing is, the same annony would be crying about how “it is not in your state! Why do you care?”
Seems to have something against women too.
Does not know much about history either.
Why would today Republicans be responsible for a law that was passed some 56 years ago?
Like many of us here on the good professor’s blog, until this case came up and PT brought it to our attention, perhaps those Republicans did not know of the law existed in the first place.
If the current Republicans disagree with the law, or don’t know about it, then why haven’t they immediately filed a motion agreeing with the plaintiffs, and asked the judge to issue a consent decree striking down the law as unconstitutional.
That would be a very easy and rapid method to strike down the law.
But they have not done that.
Please show us the proposed legislation introduced by your precious Democrats, to change the law.
Oh wow, how easy it is to educate oneself these days, as opposed to being willfully ignorant. The Republicans, however, did introduce legislation to relax the requirements.
H. 3099
Idiot.
That bill H.3099 is languishing in committee.
It was brought up by Rep. Guffey as a sole sponsor. He has no other co-sponsors for the bill.
The Republicans refuse to even bring it up for consideration in committee, let alone allow an actual floor vote.
As I said, lets see the proposed legislation from the Dems.
Also, dunce, it was REPUBLICANS who lifted the ban on tattoos in SC in 2004.
Take a wild ass guess which party banned tattoos in SC in 1962….
Fvcking idiot.
Fake Farmer
Actually, S.C. Code Ann. § 44-34- 100 was passed in 2004 when Republicans held the governorship and both the SC house and senate.
Yea, moron, and it lifted the TOTAL BAN passed by DEMOCRATS in 1962.
Are you ashamed of your ignorance.
What are you blubbering on about? Your posts are always incoherent nonsense.
Any expression, like spitting on the sidewalk, topless beaches, and thousands more, could be argued as “free speech” actions. On the one hand, we have “societal norms” and on the other hand we have chaos and non-society. Tattoos are not where I would make my stand. Besides, after watching a bunch of 60 years old’s with old, raggedy, droopy tattoos, the other day, I’ll bet some of them wish that somebody had kept them from doing it when they were young and dumb.
I agree.
The idiots who get tattoos will regret it.
Thankfully, the Republicans who have supermajorities in both houses in SC know what’s best for their citizens, and they legislate accordingly to prevent them from exercising their constitutional right to be idiots.
UpstateFarmer says:
July 24, 2026 at 10:47 AM
Why would today Republicans be responsible for a law that was passed some 56 years ago?
Like many of us here on the good professor’s blog, until this case came up and PT brought it to our attention, perhaps those Republicans did not know of the law existed in the first place.
Re: Mike Sigman
In the USA constitutional due process (means) determines (ends) “societal norms”.
That’s why women have voting rights and are allowed to have their own checkbook.
Those “societal norms” were achieved through long and deep debate in the court system.
Clarence Thomas, Mitch McConnell or JD Vance couldn’t be married to their current wives without constitutional due process in “Loving v. Virginia” court case – making their marriages a “societal norm”.
Constitutional due process is actually very conservative even though the results may seem liberal. Those norms were reached through constitutional due process.
It’s amazing to me how many young women feel the need to decorate their bodies. Nose rings are especially striking. Do they aspire to be cattle?
Its free speech. And let’s not forget, those young women are turned off by your physical ugliness.
UGLY MORON ANON
Yet, as a person, you are ugly.
You wrestle pigs and like it.
Prior to the 1930’s in South Carolina and many other states it was illegal for “Topless Males” to expose themselves at any public beach.
Men had to cover up above the waist or be charged with public indecency.
Guessing these politicians are of the same pre-1930’s mindset!
Exactly right.
The Republicans have supermajorities in both houses of SC.
This simply proves that Republicans want to drag us back to the good old days when women were unable to vote, and uppity blacks knew their place.
The double digit IQ could certainly make that connection.
Seems to me, the people who back in the good old days owned slaves, passed Jim Crow laws, were Democrats.
Dont let that bit of historical fact pop your bubble.
The same Democrats who passed the total ban on tattoos in 1962. his bubble is popped.
Why doesn’t Turley mention that South Carolina is completely controlled by Republicans ????
They have the governorship, and supermajorities in the state house and senate.
This is a classic case of the total disregard that Republicans have for the Constitution.
They love the Constitution, EXCEPT when they don’t.
Look at the birthright citizenship fiasco as just one example.
COMPLETE AND UTTER HYPOCRISY !!!!!!!
screech louder pls
Yet you fail to mention the utter disregard that Democrats have for the Constitution. Some of whom sit on the Supreme Court.
Oh the hypocrisy and the irony!!!!!
Something much more interesting, James Carville Calls On Democrats To Cave On Voter ID
“Gallup found 84 percent of Americans favor requiring photo identification at the polling place, and 83 percent favor proof of citizenship for first-time registrants – including 98 percent of Republicans, 84 percent of independents, and 67 percent of Democrats. Pew Research Center put photo-ID support at 83 percent, with 95 percent of Republicans and 71 percent of Democrats behind it and only 16 percent opposed. Rasmussen found 77 percent of likely voters calling photo ID a reasonable measure to protect election integrity.”
“We are not gonna win the war” on some kind of ID, Carville said. “I never had a problem with it. I’m just saying of all the things… if every poll shows 75 or better, saying we should have some kind of ID to vote… just quit fighting it and go along with it and move to the next thing.”
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/james-carville-calls-democrats-cave-voter-id
@Upstate
Surprising, but I’m so cynical I have to think the dems would insist on some kind of ‘special’ ID for voting – one that isn’t issued the same way as a citizen ID and could be exploited when a simple, already existing ID proving citizenship would suffice. 🤷🏻♂️
Yes move to the next 80/20 issue. Brilliant idea, James.
So me and my brother borrowed money from mother
We knew what we had to do
We went downstairs, past the barber and gymnasium
And got our arms tattooed
Welcome to my life, tattoo
I’m a man now, thanks to you
I expect I’ll regret you, but the skin graft man won’t get you
You’ll be there when I die
Tattoo
OK, I’m waiting for the same restriction being applied to a mosque with a madrasa attached. Will these same reasonings be applied, especially with attention to the daily loud speaker call to prayer? I, personally, do not have any tattoos but my children and grandchildren do; what I do find more offensive than tattoos is any facet of islam – would that count? I mean if you are going to restrict the 1st amendment because you find tattoos offensive, let’s go all the way and ban islam because so many find it offensive….. See where this leads.
Its a religious issue, not a tattoo/free speech issue. Your supposed argument is insane, but that’s expected from a cretin. Oh, BTW, ugly fat females should be banned from appearing in public.
whimsicalmama
Fortunately you won’t have long to wait for the SC legislature to place restrictions on mosques and madrasas.
After all, the Republicans have supermajorities in both houses of SC, and I am sure this is on their list to get done ASAP.
And when you move to South Carolina, you can vote them out of power.
Did S.C. taxpayers vote for a “Tatoo Police”?
Aren’t there bigger problems for politicians to focus on?
What’s next? Outlawing beards and mini-skirts.
If S.C. citizens wore full berkas and face coverings, covering all skin that would solve everything;)
Of course there are much bigger problems to deal with.
But SC is completely controlled by Republicans, with the governorship and supermajorities in both houses.
So rather than deal with actual problems they prefer to legislate this nonsense that is obviously in violation of the Constitution, which they love so much, EXCEPT when they hate it like birthright citizenship.
Aren’t you glad you don’t live in SC, where the supermajorities were voted into power by their constituents.
Absolutely!!!
I give thanks every day that I do not live in SC or anywhere in the South.
I live in a state where they have the quaint custom of legislating in such a way as to conform to the Constitution.
That probably sounds quite foreign to someone like you who hates the Constitution, especially that pesky birthright citizenship thing, and the right to protest without being shot in the street by masked, unidentifiable federal agents.
Well, aren’t you wonderful.
Says the idiot who ignores the liberals on the Supreme Court who hate the Constitution.
We give thanks every day that you dont live here as well. Only we aint whining about how you run your fvcked up state.
As with many things, if you are of age, and you want one, have at it.
Dont understand the neck and face tattoos but if that is your thing.
I do not think the state should have any say in this regard. Have to go back and look up the history of when this law was written and passed.
“Of age”. Where the f did you get that stupid line?
Above you’re IQ
Jezzz
DustOff,
Quite right. Anyone with an IQ above 60 knows what that means.
Seriously??? Now we have to deal with someone who doesn’t know what “of age” means or where it “comes from”?
Jeezus fvcking christ the stupidity displayed her is just astounding.
“The opinion is not about . . . zoning . . .”
One problem with being an indiscriminate ankle-biter is that you reveal your ignorance.
A major part of the plaintiff’s case is in fact zoning: “. . . the limits on store location [via *zoning*] makes it difficult to open a store given the many churches, schools, and playgrounds in the state.”
Further, the Pacific Legal Foundation (plaintiff’s counsel) is a well-known defender of property rights. It successfully argued one of the most important *zoning* cases to reach the Supreme Court: Nollan v. California Coastal Commission.
(Know first. Ankle-bite second. Or develop some self-esteem and don’t ankle-bite at all.)
I would want to know if the same location limitations apply to liquor store, lottery sale sites, cigarette sales sites and more. If tattoo parlors are the only restricted, then there must be a deeper and, perhaps, unconstitutional reason for this restriction.
You want to know? Then go research it. But since it was not stated in Turley’s opinion its not relevant to the issue. at hand.
Popeye had tattoos. Sailors were a crusty lot.
Didn’t know Groucho Mark could sing?
Did anyone here read Turley’s opinion? Its about a state imposing rules on citizens. Get that, or are your aged brains calcified already.
Being litigated using the constitutional system in place vs. D’s/Left approach of violence and authoritarianism.
“Its about a state imposing rules on citizens.”
That’s literally all a state is for. you have discovered ‘government’.
So only “literally”?
I don’t much care for tattoos either, but I do agree that the SC law infringes 1A/14A and should be overturned. However, I don’t think I agree with Prof. Turley’s analogy of the tattooing process to Franklin’s printing: printing is a process of duplication that is intrinsic to the need to distribute information widely; tattoos are fundamentally individual expressions.
“printing is a process of duplication that is intrinsic to the need to distribute information widely”
A distinction without a difference. Freedom of the press and freedom of expression are both protected (by the same amendment I might add).
I think it’s strictly a personal choice, so long as someone is of age. Live and let live, the law is absurd. Its opposite would be, too.
That said, the tattoo fad among the 35 and under is pretty silly to me, and I say this as someone that used to design tattoos. It’s pure impulse and sheep-ism these days, not a very conscious personal statement or memento as before, and whenever a heavily and freshly tatted person complains to me about money or not finding good work with the equivalent of a permanent luchador mask on their face, I have to laugh and hold in a tongue lashing.
I predict there will be a huge amount of buyer’s remorse in the future when the world fails to end, with a great many blue skinned people walking around or people with scads of scar tissue in the shape of those blue blotches, just like all the old hippies walking around with annoying or debilitating but non-lethal STDs (which the younger cohort also brought back. Syphilis was almost gone, made a big comeback!).
Between this and extreme piercing, paired with a failure to understand ‘permanent’, or the fact that a body can only take so much, rampant drug abuse that includes PEDs (another thing that has ballooned, and yes, drugs from a doctor and pot are still drugs that can be abused, not vitamins), I predict millennials and younger folks have created a huge future market for reconstructive surgery.
James: Good post.
One must suffer the consequences in all choices he or she makes.
Prof. Turley has yet to reconcile free speech with the right of society to uphold norms. The way I see it, any graphic you want to display personally, you are free to emblazon on your clothing. That gives you an additional freedom — to stop conveying it if your feelings later change. Looked at this way, South Carolina is enhancing the freedom of its younger citizens to avoid an impulsive act with long-term consequences. It’s no different from banning gender mutilation surgeries and hormones for minors.
That said, bravo Prof. Turley for writing about the a mushy area where conservatives aren’t of one mind on the reach of free speech. Or, as I prefer to put it, the battle of radical individualism vs. community norms.
“. . . reconcile free speech with the right of society to uphold norms.”
There is nothing to reconcile, because there is no such thing as the “right” of society. Rights are individual, not collective.
well said Sam!
and much to the chagrin of the leftys.
individualism cannot be radical. individualism is just ‘you’. you cannot help but be an individual, to be ‘you’, and you will never be a ‘group’.
We need to respect individual rights OVER their ‘norm’ as long as it doesn’t infringe on another’s. Then, we got to have a rule, which is the sole function of a people-supported government.
“It’s no different from banning gender mutilation surgeries and hormones for minors.”
Its different. And you included the difference, peanut brain in California.
I’m fine with tattoos for adults. At 18 and over, it’s an expressive form, and the choice should be yours, on your body, in the place you want it. The shop should be regulated like any other artistic business, with ordinary health and zoning rules, not special burdens just because some people dislike the medium.
The opinion is not about your opinion or zoning etc, but the 1st A.
Way to say you didnt get what he said without saying it.
What result if a State compelled tattoos? Is that compelled government speech? Does that inform how to look at speech when the government forbids tattoos? Compelled tattoos is not an abstract idea. The Third Reich did it. If tattoos are speech, what narrowly tailored strict scrutiny compelling government interest holds up South Carolina’s statute?
Never really saw the point to tattoos but loved the Groucho Marx Video. The only question I would have is the presence of a tattoo on the face likely to interfere with facial recognition. It would be such a tragedy to get an expensive facial tattoo and then get locked out of you phone or iPad if they could no longer recognize you. I suppose you might have to switch to fingerprints.
Recognition? It was not stated in Turley’s opinion.
“It would be such a tragedy to get an expensive facial tattoo and then get locked out of you phone or iPad if they could no longer recognize you. I suppose you might have to switch to fingerprints.”
The flip side to that is that if the effect you postulate does in fact exist, and tattoos are protected by 1A, facial tattoos could become a viable tactic to avoid a large part of the Surveillance State.
I Don Wannutono,
Dont give them ideas. They might pass a law mandating a QR code on your forehead for better recognition. For your safety of course.
Where was THAT predicted??
I have a visceral dislike for tattoos (particularly on the face), but I believe that they are a form of free expression.
________________________________
I never jumped on the tats idea. But getting tats on your face?. Just remember, cheap to apply, but $$$$$$$$ to remove.
So what. Its about the 1st A. Not your personal opinion.
Everyone has personal opinions. . . including you.
My personal opinion is you are a world class jerk.
so what your so what?
Do you always reply with a stupid comment. Try re-reading my comment.
I said NOTHING about 1st. Only about getting tats on the face.
“Do you always reply with a stupid comment.”
We hold these truths to be self evident.
Women use tattoos for permanent lip color and eyebrows as cosmetic.
No regerts
I appreciate the visible ink, especially on the neck, face and head. It’s like a giant billboard hanging around the neck warning others that you have attention deficit disorder and possible other mental issues. Mama was wrong, you can in fact judge a book by the ink on it’s cover.
LOL… so true
BillyG,
Or a Nazi tattoo on your chest.
We all knew that was a red flag but it still took Democrats how many months to figure that out?