South Carolina State Law Bans Tattoos on Faces,

OK, so here is the deal:

With the news cycle full of tales about the battle in Iran, Democratic Socialist (Marxist) mayors’ latest harmful nonsense, election fraud, Medicaid fraud, and other such enjoyable stuff, I made a decision to take a short journey off the overwhelmed path and write about an intriguing case involving face tattoos, inalienable rights, and the U.S. Constitution.

Sound like a enjoyable diversion? It was. Read on.

As many, if not most, of us are conscious, free speech instances are often messy and often replete with uncomfortable details. This is one of those instances. 

A South Carolina tattoo parlor is difficult a state law that not only prohibits tattoo retailers from working within 1,000 ft of church buildings, faculties, or playgrounds, but also bans tattoos on the face, neck, and head altogether. 

Whether you suppose face tattoos are a horrible thought or not — I do, with the worst of them being abhorrent — the lawsuit raises a acquainted constitutional query: 

Can the federal government limit protected expression merely because it does not just like the message — or the canvas, as it have been? Great query — with a number of opinions and different arguments. 

Here’s more: 

In South Carolina, where tattooing was not legalized until 2004, tattoo retailers face some of the strictest laws in the nation. Now, a tattoo business is suing the state’s health director and attorney basic, claiming two of the state’s legal guidelines violate the First and 14th Amendments. 

Under state law, the South Carolina Health Department doesn’t grant or issue licenses to tattoo amenities within 1,000 ft of church buildings, faculties, or playgrounds. 

The state also prohibits tattoo artists from giving face, neck, and head tattoos. Tattooing these areas is taken into account a misdemeanor, and anybody who violates this rule could also be fined, sentenced to a yr in prison, or both. 

In a lawsuit filed Friday, the New York City-based company Tiny Zaps, which provides small, artist-designed micro tattoos, argues that these restrictions current unconstitutional hurdles to opening and working a pop-up business in a resort situated in Charleston’s historic district. 

The objective of the lawsuit, filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation on behalf of New York tattoo store Tiny Zaps, is to clear the way in which for the business to open a South Carolina location. Tiny Zaps insists the federal government has no business deciding where —or on what physique half— people can get inked, arguing that “tattoos are a form of artistic expression protected by the First Amendment.” 

According to the criticism, tattoos “communicate ideas, commemorate milestones, express beliefs, and allow people to present themselves to the world through permanent artwork created in collaboration with tattoo artists.”

ALSO SEE: SCOTUS Hands GOP Major Win, Strikes Down Limits on Party Spending With Candidates

A ‘BIG WIN’ — Trump Hails SCOTUS for Political Spending and Men in Women’s Sports Rulings

I get it. The complete “self-expression” factor, that is.

We’ve all seen them. Heck, I bear in mind when former heavyweight champion Mike Tyson acquired that ridiculous tattoo around his left eye. It was terrible, I believed. Don’t get me improper; I really like me some Iron Mike, but dude, why your face?

Now, in retrospect, Mike’s tattoo was slightly delicate — in contrast to some of the freak exhibits we see on a common foundation. That said, the fact stays: Is it anybody else’s business who will get inked — where, and how a lot? 

George Washington University Law School professor and political commentator Jonathon Turley shared his ideas on the case in Wednesday’s column. Among those ideas: 

The case presents a common problem for free speech advocates like myself. I’ve a visceral dislike for tattoos (notably on the face), but I consider that they’re a kind 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 embrace claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the 14th Amendment).

[The lawsuit] 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.”

So again, are face and neck tattoos — notably extreme ones — abhorrent? 

In my thoughts, yes. Then again, the notion of any tattoo on my own physique is a bit repulsive to me for the simple matter that I do not need something put on my physique that I am unable to wash off. Crazy? Not to me. 

The above said, do I agree with Jonathan Turley? Somewhat reluctantly, yes. Such legal guidelines are a slippery slope.

What say you?

Note: The mainstream media is not in the details; they’re only in attacking the president and propping up the Left. Help us continue to carry you the details by supporting our truth-seeking journalism today.

Join PurpleState’s VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership!