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:
*. What about obscenities or profanity tattooed in visible places? Is that for children or sheltered women to see? Body pornography that isn’t easily removed and part of a person’s skin for all to see? License plates are restricted. My body my choice?
This is commercial regulation. It’s not 1A. Recall a small town had to remove a mural of Iryna the murdered young woman? See your city council. Meh
It’s 1A because it’s pictures and words. Oh brother, see zoning. Head and neck? What’s the rationale? It’ll make children really want them
“I have a visceral dislike for tattoos (particularly on the face), but I believe that they are a form of free expression”
Why do so many people, especially lawyers and law experts feel the need to qualify their legal opinions? Just the fact, just the law, we don’t care about your personal opinions.
That’s a fair point. Talking about one’s personal feelings on something, completely unconnected to the legal point, is probably the writer’s way of begging the reader for approval. But that assumes the reader would think less of the writer if the writer just talked about the law.
People who have attended three years of law school are trained not to care about those tangential matters, but the general audience for whom Professor Turley writes has largely not attended three years of law school. So, psychologizing him from a distance, I suspect that’s why he does it.
Still, it is annoying. So I agree with you.
You have just now discovered that America is completely arbitrary and unconstitutional.
Americans don’t have the freedom bestowed by the Founders, Americans have orders from the personal preferences and inclinations from some clearly bizarre jurists.
The entire communist American welfare state is unconstitutional, including, but not limited to, admissions affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, CRT, DEI, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, PBS, NPR, Fed, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Environmental Protection Agency, Agriculture, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.
Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to tax for ONLY debt, defense, and “general Welfare”—ALL or THE WHOLE WELL PROCEED through governmental provision of security and basic infrastructure—omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual Welfare, specific Welfare, particular Welfare, favor, or charity.
The same Article enumerates and provides Congress the power to regulate ONLY “the Value of money,” “Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes,” and “land and naval Forces.”
Further, the 5th Amendment right to private property was initially qualified by the Framers and is, therefore, absolute, allowing no further qualification and allowing ONLY the owner the power to “claim and exercise” dominion over private property.
Government exists, under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to provide maximal freedom to individuals, while government is severely limited and restricted to facilitating that maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of security and basic infrastructure.
The Necessary and Proper Clause is nothing more than a perfunctory redundancy for the purposes of clarification—a reinforcement of that which was previously codified—and may not be wielded to amend and impose separate acts that do not represent but alter the letter and spirit of the Founders and Framers.
Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto 59 years after the adoption of the Constitution because none of the principles of the Communist Manifesto were in the Constitution. Had the principles of the Communist Manifesto been in the Constitution, Karl Marx would have had no reason to write the Communist Manifesto. The principles of the Communist Manifesto were not in the Constitution then, and the principles of the Communist Manifesto are not in the Constitution now.
Private property IS NOT public property—not in any aspect or facet, or to any degree.
“. . . we don’t care about your personal opinions.”
In this case, you missed the deeper implication:
Stating his personal distaste of tattoos, then setting that aside to analyze the case via the law — those two, side-by-side, stress his *objectivity*. And it stresses his hierarchy of values: 1A over his personal feelings (about tattoos).
I mean, it is an effective technique to signal objectivity to the reader. But the writer’s objectivity is also beside the point, and the need to signal it seems to reflect insecurity. IMHO, when we want to discuss legal issues, the personal opinions or objectivity of the writer just get in the way.
“. . . the need to signal [objectivity] seems to reflect insecurity.”
In an age where there’s a wholesale assault on objectivity (including in the law) — *that* is the message you see?!
Yours is a very cynical interpretation of his motivation. And knowing him as you do, completely unwarranted.
Old man, shame on you for assigning a motive to Turley. “Insecurity?” “Begging for approval?” And your
“that’s a fair point” sounds an awful lot like Olly. This all is a real deviation from your previous reputation here. Are YOU trying to gain approval like Olly does?
“. . . shame on you for assigning a motive to Turley.”
It’s projection.
I think the hierarchy of values being drummed into non-lawyers is very important, and I appreciate him for doing so.
One could argue that it is because the qualifier shows that the legal support is based on the principle of free speech, and not support or hatred of a form of expression.
It is akin to the saying (attributed to Voltaire) of “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
“It is akin to the saying . . .”
Exactly.
“… 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. …” -JT
Similar Case Re.: City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41 (1986)
The Rule: The Supreme Court ruled cities can use zoning laws to restrict the location of adult businesses.
The Distance: Most cities set these boundaries at 1,000 feet (rather than 100 feet) from schools, churches, or parks.
The Justification: Cities are legally allowed to control the “negative secondary effects” of adult businesses, such as crime or declining property values.
The Condition: The zoning laws cannot entirely ban adult stores and must leave reasonable alternative locations to operate.
Ref.: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/475/41/
That wasn’t the argument, clown. The Complaint challenges it on other grounds.
The fighting edge of US free speech law has almost always been sex.
I would highly recomend
Girls Lean Back Everywhere: The Law of Obscenity and the Assault on Genius is a book written by American lawyer, Edward de Grazia.
as a history of free speech law in the US
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girls_Lean_Back_Everywhere
A 1986 SCOTUS case on X rated establishments is NOT going to hold muh weight regarding tattoos.
Frankly I doubt the 1986 case would be decided the same today
And I would be surprised if it has not bee overruled since.
Thank you for the Book reference – much appreciated John Say
– Mandatum Certiorari Negatum
Tattoos are a fad, like hippie long hair, mullets and hot pants. However, unlike these examples, tattoos are forever unless you have the money and pain tolerance to undergo the removal process. An example of just how recently tattoos became a fad, in the 1989 film: “Steel Magnolias”, Dolly Parton’s character comments about some young woman by saying: “Louie brought his new girlfriend over, and the nicest thing I can say about her is all her tattoos are spelled correctly.” I personally detest tattoos, especially on women, because it does not reflect individuality, as proponents argue, but rather, willingness to deface your own body to conform to a fad, to fit in with other people who think it’s “cool”, which it isn’t. It’s sad, really, to see young women with lovely skin marked up with dark purple ink and some stupid design out of a book–like a rose or butterfly. To me, it’s like seeing a a tailored man’s suit or an expensive woman’s dress with a big ink stain. It detracts from their appearance, and I prefer not to deal with such people because I don’t respect them because I don’t think they respect themselves. That said, I don’t think the government should be regulating tattoos other than under health regulations for safety of materials and instruments used, the qualifications of the person doing the procedure and cleanliness of the facility. I don’t think the First Amendment applies. There’s no political message conveyed by most tattoos–just the message: “I am foolish and proud of it”.
The first amendment applies most strongly to political speech, but the protection is for all speech
That’s true, and it means the government cannot favor some tattoos over others based on their message. But how do 1A’s limitations pertain to tattoo regulations that have nothing to do with the content of the message? Like, can a state enact a blanket ban on tattoos, or would 1A prohibit that? Can a state ban tattoos on the face and head? Can the state ban certain colors being used in tattoos (not that it ever would, but just as a hypothetical)?
OMFK – you can not violate the first amendment through the back door.
Contra the left the supreme court has never decided that Money is speech. What they have decided is that Money is a prerequiste for effective political speech.
There are no loopholes that pave the way to restrict speech indirectly.
what kind of limitations does the first amendment place on state-level tattoo regulations?
AI Overview
Protected Expression vs. Government Control
Pure Speech Status: Many federal circuit and district courts treat the creation and display of tattoos as fully protected artistic expression, similar to writing or painting.
Ban Prohibitions: Complete bans on operating tattoo businesses or receiving tattoos violate free speech rights.
Targeted Placement & Proximity Limits: Laws criminalizing specific body placements (like the head, face, or neck) or imposing extreme zoning buffers (such as keeping shops 1,000 feet away from churches) face heavy constitutional challenges for treating body art as “second-class expression.”
Permissible State Regulations
Health and Safety: States retain the power to enforce neutral health, sanitation, training, and licensing rules to prevent disease.
Content Neutrality: Rules must target safety, not the message, and cannot single out tattoo expression based on moral discomfort or aesthetic stigma.
OMFK this is exactly the type of question AI can not actually answer.
According to google, Scotus has ruled that zoning laws limiting where exotic dancing clubs can open are generally constitutional, as long as they do not completely ban the businesses and are meant to control negative side effects like high crime or lower property values. The U.S. Supreme Court calls this the secondary effects doctrine. Thus, cities can force clubs to stay a set number of feet away from schools, churches, parks, or homes.
I wonder if this “secondary effects doctrine” is the justification for restricting tattoo shop locations too (although that can’t be the reason for precluding tattoos on the face, neck, or head, which is a different issue). I can see the logic with regard to exotic dancing clubs, especially where the patrons are likely to consume alcohol. But it seems a harder argument to make with tattoo shops, no?
I don’t think that is the argument being made in the Complaint. The Complaint hints at a ruse, since body piercing parlors are not restricted, etc. I think someone brought that up.
The Constitution states that “no person shall be deprived of private property.”
The Supreme Court claims that it has the power to modify and amend the Constitution and that it holds dominion over private property.
It does not.
The Supreme Court has violated fundamental law.
______________________________________________________
Article II, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Zoning laws are a huge mistake with a racist past.
The first of these types of laws were used to exclude blacks from white neighborhoods, and in the Lockner era the supreme court got this right,
Th contracts clause prohibits states from interfering in private contracts. The lochner era contracts clause resulted in a number of “civil rights” wins where states tried to use a variety of laws to restrict blacks. But the contracts clause also prohibited even federal government regulation of the economy. It blocked child labor laws and minimum wage laws and things came to a head with the New deal. After the court used the contracts clause to stop major new deal programs like the disasterous National Recovery Act – FDR threatened to pack the supreme court.
This resulted in the “stitch in time that saves nine” – one justice flipped, and then several justices retired and we got a long string of absolutely idiotic SCOTUS decisions such as Wickard Vs Filburn. This was the REAL birth of the administrative state.
All kinds of bad and often racist laws followed. The OVERT original purpose of minimum wages laws was to make blacks unemployeable
and they still work that way today. As noted above the predecessors to zoning laws were laws specifically intended to preserve white only areas.
Laws excluding the chinese from living in much of the country persisted until atleast the 1960s
Aside from the use of Zoning laws as racial barriers they still function as class barriers and are used even today to keep “undesirables” out.
Most of us tend to think Child labor laws and zoning laws and minimum wage laws are positive – that is garbage as is obvious from their history.
Child labor disappears everywhere in the world as standard of living rises – laws are unneeded.
Further as John Stuart Mill noted in his scathing criticism of “democracy” – th most totalitarian forms of government are greatly limited in the constraints they can impose because people NATURALLY resist identifiable authorities – it is not accidental that our founders spcifically blamed King George in the Declaration of Independence – even thought Parliment was responsible for much of what was objected to, and King Georges day to day political management of government and laws was less than a US president. When people can blame a single or small group of people – they naturally resist. But democracy subjects each of us to the tyranny of the whims of the majority of our neighbors and it is near impossible to build the natural resistance against tyranny imposed by your neighbors.
Zoning is absolutely unconstitutional – and contra its proponents has not actually done any good. Like child labor laws it seek to fix problems that fix themselves. Further – no group of planners can ever foresee ho humans will best arrange their affairs and interrelations in the future.
Zoning laws created the suburbs and frequently mean long drives for people to buy groceries.
Today we are seeing new mixed use zoning that allows some residential and commericial to coexist
But again – WHY should we beleive that some zoning board KNOWS what the right way to organize society is now or in the future?
Top Down planning FAILS. Free markets will make mistakes, and it will fix them. But they will also discover the best way to arrange things today and as the way we live changes they will discover the best way to do so in the future.
But back to this case – when free expression TODAY collides with laws regarding land use – with very rare exceptions limited mostly to adult entertainment SCOTUS has ruled that free expression wins. Even the “Gun Free School Zones” federal law lost at the supreme court until it was severely narrowed.
SCOTUS should return to flushing all land use regulation on the grounds it violates the contracts clause. It should return to flushing nearly all economic regulation on the same basis.
But that is not likely in my lifetime or that of my kids – even though it is the plain text of the constitution and such laws were routinely shot down until the mid 1930’s and such laws have never done the slightest bit of demonstrable good
Unfortunately Mills was correct – there is no limit to our willingness to meddle in the live of our neighbors, and the outrage and pushback that would result in the very same laws being imposed by a dictator or king is massively weakened when done by our neighbors,
And this is why Mills correctly identified democracy is the MOST oppressive of all governments.
The US is not a democracy – but we suffer the same flaw to a slightly lessor extent. Our protection is in the constitution and the courts and fr too often that proves far too weak.
OMFK – while it is possible that SCOTUS might by that argument with respect to tattoos, it is not likely.
US first amendment law is the most inconsistent when it has something to do with sex.
Exotic dancer – sure. Tattoo parlors ? Nope.
I have to agree with the Professor’s assessment. However, perhaps an addendum would be in order.
The time to pass a law would be well spent if it prohibited a person running for office from blotting out a SS Nazi tattoo on his chest so that full disclosure might come to fruition. Leave the people alone but let the tattoo tell the tale when a person is interviewing for a job. It doesn’t matter if your wish is to be a night watchman for the rest of your life.
Workin on a night move.
Gettin into that low down paying grooove
She’s working on that night mooove
Gettin high and sleepin tell nooon
She’s working on a night moooove
TiT
NOOOO!
Platner is not gone because of the tattoo
He is not gone because of the accusers that have come forward.
He is gone BECAUSE people ultimately decided he was a liar.
The tattoo was quite easy to deal with – he was in the military, While I suspect other in your face tattoos are more common – I doubt Deaths Head tattoos are rare. Further I do not think Platner was ever a Nazi.
It is not the tattoo that is the HUGE problem – it is the LIES about the tattoo.
The last thing we want is laws that successfully bar untrustworthy people from hiding who they are and then getting exposed.
We do not need the laws you want.
We need more honest journlists.
The right to private property is absolute. Only the owner may “claim and exercise” dominion. Private industries must effectively self-regulate to preclude deleterious litigation. Local “Building and Planning Departments” and so-called “zoning” are unconstitutional.
The 4th Amendment right to privacy allows only the person the right to “claim and exercise” dominion over his body (embryos and fetuses are entirely separate and sovereign individuals).
_______________
“[Private property is] that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”
– James Madison
_____________________
4th Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated….
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5th Amendment
No person shall be…deprived of…property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Waddaya know! The Universe’s Censor, WordfreakingPress, got the article up today! Hurray!
What kind of a difference a proximity of a church makes? Most part of any week there is nobody inside. Same with dealing drugs near schools at 2am on summer recess.
I live in an area with lots of Amish – when they have problems with local businesses – proximity to churches, schools, or other negative effect, They just get together and Buy the businesses that take the money and move elsewhere.
To be clear I am NOT selling the Amish culture – there is lots wrong with it. Platner is not alone in not taking no for an answer.
But my point is there are often solutions to problems that do not involve government.
Free markets self-resolve.
Antitrust laws are unconstitutional.
The solution to monopolization is competition.
It’s commerce. Commerce can be regulated.
A strip mall block of: porn shop, tattoo parlor, bar, abortion clinic, weed dispensary, vegan restaurant.
One stop shopping
Absolutely! Commerce may be regulated.
Commerce, that is, the buying and selling, nothing more and nothing less, per Article 1, Section 8, “with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes.”
You left out Democratic Party Office.
“No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.”
Government may not regulate contracts. All free exchange is by contract.
For most of US history the commerce clause was not considered to ba a grant of power to the federal government but a restriction on the power of the states. Through to the 1930s governent regulation of the economy – commerce was routinely shot down by SCOTUS.
The beleif that the constitution does not severaly limit government regulation of the economy is very modern and ahistorical and at odds with the constitution.
Please cite Article 1, Section 8, for any power to regulate any aspect of the economy.
Congress may regulate commerce, that is, the buying and selling ““with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes.”
That is all.
“this is akin to treating the Declaration of Independence as protected speech but not Benjamin Franklin’s printing of the document.”
He needs a better metaphor. The first amendment not only protects speech, it also protects the press. Which at the time of the adoption of the amendment was a printing press. The protection extended to all printed material and not just newspapers.
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.”
In my opinion, the above is not a great argument by the otherwise sharp Professor Turley. Tattooing is a procedure that modifies the human body in a way that can have adverse health consequences (bacterial and viral infections, allergic reactions, chronic skin inflammation, and scarring). The government has a much greater interest in regulating that practice than a process that merely puts ink onto paper.
I think it would be better to argue that, while there is a rational basis for ensuring tattooists hold valid licenses showing they adhere to health standards, there is no similar government interest in regulating (a) the tattoo’s placement on the body, (b) the location of the tattooing business, or (c) the content of the message expressed by the tattoo.
>”or (c) the content of the message expressed by the tattoo.
Clearly, some tattoos are better than others, ,,
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/7oa9n4eCGns
“The government has a much greater interest in regulating that practice than a process that merely puts ink onto paper.”
MAYBE with respect to children. Absolutely not with respect to adults.
If you wish to do something stupid to yourself – that is your own business – so long as you do not harm others.
” What you are inferring is, If we were to legalise heroin tomorrow everybody would use heroin. How many people here would start using heroin? I bet nobody would. Oh yeah, I need the government to take care of me. I don’t want to use heroin, so I need these laws. ”
Ron Paul
We do not need laws to protect people from themselves.
They are a mistake and an infringement on our liberty our rights and our pursuit of happiness.
Myriads of people have noted that regardless of your race even if you start in abject poverty if you avoid making really stupid choices with your life – you will end up in the middle class – the data on that is incredibly strong. It is why we do NOT need this idiotic social safetynet.
CONVERSELY if you make stupid choices – no amount of laws can save you from poverty, a $hitty life, even death.
It is not the legitimate role of govenrment to protect you from your own bad choices.
This is pretty much the most foundational principle of libertarianism.
The ONLY aspect of that principle that is NOT rock solid is that it is specific to competent adults.
There is unfortunately no libertarian foundational principle for how we deal with the rights of children, and the incompetent to make stupid mistakes.
Regardless there is no legitimate govenrment interest in regulating what adults do with their own bodies – no matter how stupid,
so long as they do not cause ACTUAL harm to others.
Further even where some government action MIGHT be justified – A priori interference is very rarely if ever justified
We do not punish people for buying knives. We punish then for Stabbing people with them.
We do not punish hypothetical harm we punish ACTUAL harm – usually after it has occured.
Wonderful post, Professor! And even though Karl has captured the hearts of the American Left, I still say that Groucho is, hands down, the favorite Marx brother!
Tattoos are like dope, they’re addictive. Many people are drunk or high when they get them. They’re “cool” while they’re young but as people age, which everyone does. many wish they didn’t have them. I knew a lot of people in the military who got them then wished they didn’t.
Sam – very interesting about tattoos being an addiction. That never occurred to me, but seeing highly-tattooed individuals, I believe you are correct.
AI Overview:
While getting tattoos is not a clinical or chemical addiction, many people feel a strong urge to get more because the process triggers a natural rush of endorphins, adrenaline, and dopamine in the body. Body chemistry: Pain from the needle causes your body to release endorphins and adrenaline to help you cope, which creates a happy, euphoric feeling. The art collector mindset: Most people simply enjoy collecting body art, planning new pieces, or transforming their look much like collecting stamps or paintings. Excitement and control: Choosing a design gives people a fun way to express their identity or celebrate personal life milestones.
oldman
Very important observation.
The exact same principle applies to cults, such as the MAGA cult to which you belong.
AI Overview
While cult membership is not classified as a clinical medical addiction, psychologists and researchers frequently use an addiction framework to understand how high-control groups capture and retain members. The psychological mechanisms, powerful behavioral loops, and intense social validation mirror the cycles seen in substance or behavioral addictions.
Parallels Between Cults and Addiction
Dopamine and Reward: Constant praise, love-bombing, and exclusive group validation trigger chemical and emotional highs similar to compulsive behaviors.
Compulsive Persistence: Members often continue participation and defend the group despite severe personal, financial, or emotional damage.
Central Organizing Principle: The group’s ideology and demands slowly take over every aspect of a person’s thoughts, time, and life choices.
^ Stupid moronic comment by Leftist cult member ^
Ooooh, lookey, someone who thinks men should be in women’s competitive sports, locker rooms, and showers, and thinks it’s okay for children to decide to get their genitals chopped off, and thinks it’s okay to hold drag queen story hour for kindergarteners, and thinks the national border should be erased, and believes in defunding the police, is referring to normal, sane people as “Cult members.” That there is a knee-slapper!
After writing that little diatribe, did you notice that you felt much happier and even euphoric.
That was the endorphins and dopamine rush that was triggered by your MAGA cult addiction.
^ Says the person who thinks men should be in women’s competitive sports, locker rooms, and showers, and thinks it’s okay for children to decide to get their genitals chopped off, and thinks it’s okay to hold drag queen story hour for kindergarteners, and thinks the national border should be erased, and believes in defunding the police.
I see you have returned for another dose of endorphins courtesy of your MAGA cult addiction.
It really is addictive isn’t it.
You really can’t get enough, just like any junkie shooting up behind the dumpster.
I’m sure you feel much better now, at least until this dose wears off.
Here’s something you didn’t previously know: telling the truth produces its own mental reward, quite independent of endorphins – a word you just learned and feel so sophisticated using. That’s because you’re a pseudointellectual.
The right is not acting to stop you from ruining your own lives. They do not seek power over you.
It is YOU that seeks the dose of endorphins that comes from power over others.
Everything written was a demand for YOU to leave people alone.
Thwarting the idiotic use of force to infringe on liberty does not trigger euphoria.
But unfortantely wielding actual power over others absolutely does.
Protecting yout liberty from iningement does NOT release dopamine or endorphins – unfortunately
Because if it did – you left wing idiots would be gone.
It is imposing your will by force over others that does.
Look at the nonsense from the DSA at the moment.
First as people are increasingly noting – the DSA – the US far left is increasingly made up of over educated failures.
There are white – often female, people who have gone to college gotten useless degrees – even graduate degrees and find themselves offering the world nothing that it wants. They are FAILURES in life.
So what is it they do ? Rush out to seek power – claiming they are benefiting the working class and minorities who wisely even more than the rest of us DO NOT WANT THEIR INTERFERANCE.
Before anyone anywhere should ever give you the power to change the world, you should demonstrate that you can manage your own lives. Clean your room, fix YOUR OWN lives, get a job that is actually productive – you can tell how productiv a job is by hat it pays. Given that Backhoe operators are generally paid more than you – that shows YOUR actual value in the world.
Regardless you are busy jumping into politics to do what ? F#$K over other people – people who for the most part do not want your “help”.
Regardless YOUR the ones seeking the rush of exercising power over others.
Libertarians, conservatives, MAGA talk of limited government – because OBVIOUSLY we only need government for those very few things that REQUIRE force.
“You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man’s age-old dream — the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order –or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path.”
Why do we dream of individual freedom ? Because we do not want to have to waste our time unproductively dealing with idiots like you constantly seeking to infringe on it.
WE dream of a world in which there is no reason to vote. no reason to engage in politics no reason to pay attention to politics – because people like you CANT attain the power to F$%K thing up.
Look at this topic and the comments. Almost everyone – right and left think this laws is stupid.
There is some discussion over whether it is constitutional – but very few are arguing that this is a necescary and good law.
There are a few on the left who oppose this law because they are itching to rush out and get their face tattooed
But most posters think all or most tattoos are a bad idea. But they are NOT rushing out to infringe on your liberty to do stupid things.
Libertarians will be happy to tell you how stupid you are – but none are going to stop you from stupid acts that only harm yourself.
Very few conservatives want power over you to prevent you from doing stupid things that harm yourself.
While EVERYONE on the left gets off on exercising the power to control other peoples lives.
This explains the cult of the left.
It does not explain people whose central political principle is “Dont Tread On Me”
People getting together collectively – because unfortunately our political system requires that to THWART left wing nuts who get a rush of dopamine and endorphins from Screwing over others, and not engaged in an activity that is in anyway addicitve.
We would all be happy to go home and live our lives – without any involvement in politics at all.
Legitimate govenrment has a FEW legitimate tasks, which do NOT require constant tinkering.
I am hard pressed to think of a law that did not exist in 1787 that needs to exist today – and some that did exist then which we can do without.
I and myriads of others have had to waste massive amounts of time and money in constant vigilance to preserve what I am ntitled to by RIGHT.
Unfortunately “the price of freedom is eternal vigilance”
And it is wing nuts like YOU that we must be vigilant against.
There is no great biochemial rush in protecting liberty from loons like you.
There is an OBVIOUS rush in imposing your will by force on others.
If there was not – the political involvement of conservatives an libertarians would not be necessary.
There is not likely a single consrvative, libertarian or MAGA person on this blog that would even vote – if it was not to STOP YOU from imposing your idiotic nonsense through force or to UNDO the stupid nonsense you have imposed on us by force in the past.
EVERYTHING in your ideology is about FORCING OTHERS. There is absolutely NOTHING that you seek politically that you can not accomplish FOR YOURSELF in YOUR OWN LIFE.
The strong desire to be left alone and to leave others alone – outside of VOLUNTARY relationships by choice is the fartherst thing there can possibly be to a cult.
YOU are the OBVIOUS cult.
Apparently the mentally unstable John Say does not understand that a desire to be left alone outside of voluntary relationships, is in fact an admission that he is in a cult.
By definition, people in cults have an intense desire to be left alone and associate only with other cult members.
So he admits to being in a cult, but unfortunately lacks the intellectual insight to understand this reality.
Such lack of self-awareness is all to common in low functioning individuals who are attracted to cults, and vote for Trump.
ATS
Logic is clearly not your forte.
While I have not claimed that I or anyone else wants to be “left alone”. What we want is for YOU to stop using FORCE against us and others – especially given you can not run your own life.
Go to a party, don’t – YOUR CHOICE
Get a face tattoo, don’t YOUR CHOICE.
Use FORCE to dictate ho others must live their lives – MORALLY WRONG.
But lefts accept your idiotic claim at face value.
A cult is by definition NOT people who want to be left alone.
There is no such thing as a cult of one.
But no one expects rational thought from you.
“By definition, people in cults have an intense desire to be left alone and associate only with other cult members.”
What definition would that be ? The left wing moron dictionary ?
Regardless back to misrepresenting what I said ?
who said anthing about ONLY assoicating within ONE voluntary group ?
I explicitly said people who want to be left alone by those like YOU who wish to use FORCE against them.
Join rotary, join a church, join a charity join a book club, go to parties.
Nothing in anything I have described precludes a broad and active social life, or a solitary monastic one.
What it does preclude is idiots like YOU using FORCE to get your way.
“Dont tread on me” is what 3.5M americans told England in 1776.
Are you saying our founders were a huge cult ?
I hope that in the trial, Groucho is called as an expert witness.
In other cultures, the exposure of tattoos is, or can be, forbidden. With a tattoo, one is not going to be able to enjoy the pleasures of a Japanese on-sen (hot spring spa).
I completely agree with Professor Turley.
While tattoos may not be my thing, I know the Founders would never have approved of violating 1A by restricting someone’s right to express themselves with a tattoo.
The fact that some are offended, or think it’s a sign of mental illness, or any other ridiculous objection is irrelevant.
If it doesn’t affect you directly, you don’t get to tell someone else what they can do.
Anyone who thinks they have the right to tell another person they can’t get a tattoo anywhere on their body they want was raised wrong, and they are inconsequential while also being un-American.
My opinion is if the morons want a tattoo that limits their opportunities in life like a decent job let them do it to themselves.
A person might go outside the law’s jurisdiction to get a tattoo. Hence, free speech isn’t affected.
Wrong. Limiting the PLACE of free speech very much affects free speech.
There are VERY STRICT limits on the government restricting the “place” of protected speech. And these limits are at their most stringent when the speech is on private property.
You’re not wrong, but the comment you responded to was bait, and you bit.
LMAO “I was stupid on purpose.”
Riiiiiiiight
I’ve noticed these very short, obviously ridiculous, comments. I ignore them because they are just baiting a response.
No, you made the comment. And are now trying to backpedal.
No, I’m a different anonymous. I would never say the stupid stuff the baiting anonymous said.
If you do not wish to be confused with others – post under a name.
And no one ever argued that because some states allow abortion, abortion bans are ok. Straw man.
So they go from affected to infected… I see beautiful young women, 20 years old and already sleeved out, dirt legs, tramp stamps the works…pierced everything, future porn stars.
Being FORCED by the law to go elsewhere IS LIMITING FREEDOM.
If I am only allowed to excercise my right to free expression on alternate sundays, after 2am in the shower – then I am no longer free
(1) As to the 1000-foot restriction, it is noted that there are no codified zoning/location restrictions for either body-piercing (e.g., tongue studs, nipple rings, navel jewelry, etc.) or massage parlor businesses. In other words, these businesses are often located near schools, churches, playgrounds, etc., particularly in downtown areas. South Carolina prohibits the tattooing of minors under the age of 18; even “attractive nuisance” arguments could not hold water.
(2) As to the head, neck location restrictions, it is noted that, as the Complaint alleges, “South Carolina
already comprehensively regulates tattooing through licensing, sanitation, sterilization, training, inspections, and customer-protection requirements.” These would be similar to those regulating body piercings (tongue studs, nipple rings, navel jewelry, etc.)
(3) Adding to (2) above, in the dissenting opinion expressed in the White case cited by Professor Turley, Justice Waller defended tattoos as expressive art under the First Amendment. “Indeed, it would be ludicrous to suggest that because Michelangelo chose the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel upon which to paint, his renderings are not communicative.”
Conclusion: This is a case of distasteful vs. illegal.
My bet (and hope): this case is a loser for SC.
Well said.
Well said.
“This is a case of distasteful vs. illegal.”
Completely agree.
“South Carolina has long treated tattooing as disfavored expression. Until 2004, South Carolina was one of only two states that outlawed tattooing.”
Any idea what’s behind SC’s animus toward tattoos?
Sam, my guess is health reasons, hepatitis, etc., because I know it was banned in NYC, not NY, around 1960.
Again a priori is immoral and properly unconstitutional.
Have we not learned how vile giving govenrent public health powers can be from Covid ?
We allowed the destruction of Trillions of dollars of wealth creation because government for the most part knowingly lied to us about a disease that aside from not causing in the first place there was pretty much nothing that could be done to stop.
Would e support laws that banned the sun rise ?
If you did not learn from Covid – then read the Heinous SCOTUS decision Buck V Bell – which is unfortunatly still good law.
Government has no legitimate power to prevent people from taking health risks or making stupid health choices in their own lives.
To the extent government has ANY role in this it is punishing those who harm others through recklessness or negligence.
Punish people who give others hepatitis – whether they are doctors, tattooists, or ex partners.
Do not ban medicine, tattoos or sex.
I should have added that in the East Village, piercings became very common, and walking on the street one could see people having multiple piercings all over the body and using one’s own weight to stretch them. As everyone knows, rings and jewelry are everywhere.
Face tatoos and identity? Any restrictions? The tatoo is as permanent as a nose.
Wait, what? I live in South Carolina. I’ve seen people with tattoos on their faces… Maybe they are some of the people, including me, who have moved here from somewhere else. I think they are stupid, but c’est la vie.
Yes, the location might be hard in some aeeas, but not impossible. Off the top of my head, I can think of three tattoo parlors in the growing town about 20 miles from Charleston where I live and I have zero interest in getting one.
Responding to your request for the cultural and educational value of tattoos, in the spirit of Lydia, I offer:
On her chest, a barmaid from Sale,
Had tattooed all the prices of ale.
And on her behind,
For the good of the blind,
Was the same information, in Braille.
Sorry, I couldn’t resist.
that is……………………..unfortunately……………………………..repulsively clever/funny.
Mark – good one!
Gosh, let me think about this, trying to prioritize.
America is in a war with Iran, $40 Trillion Dollars in debt, freaking idiot Democrats embracing Communism, food and gas prices off the charts, still have millions of illegals in America, divided government, and an article about should we give two $hits about State government regulating tattoos.
As Americas greatest Buffoon once said, “C’mon Man”.
There are many blogs and news outlets discussing the political issues you mention. Along the top of this page is a list of the various issues to which Professor Turley devotes these articles. They are not all politics, thank God.
This is a legal blog with a focus on free speech.
The Iran war is marginally a legal issue and not a free speech issue.
The Debt is neither
Democrats embracing comunism is only to the extent that nothing is as lawless and hostile to all freedom than communism.
Food and gas prices are not a legal or free speech issue
millions of illegals is not a free speech issue
divided governent is arguably a good thing.