Speak Outs
Speak Out
Are tattoos a form of protected speech?

November 16, 2015

By Jeremy Quattlebaum, Student Voices staff writer

Tattoos have become as ubiquitous as dyed hair and trendy clothes, but are they a form of protected speech?

That was one of the questions in the case of Coleman v. City of Mesa, which was decided in September 2012 by the Arizona Supreme Court.

In July 2008, Ryan and Laetitia Coleman requested a permit to open a tattoo parlor in Mesa, Ariz. The city denied the permit in March 2009, saying that the shop was “not appropriate for the location or in the best interest of the neighborhood,” according to court documents. The couple disagreed with the ruling so they sued, arguing that the denial was a violation of their First Amendment free speech right in the U.S. Constitution and the free-speech provision in the Arizona Constitution.

Their lawsuit was rejected by Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Larry Grant, who said the city’s decision was “a reasonable and rational regulation of land use.” The case eventually made its way to the state Supreme Court.

The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech…” In this case, “Congress” can be interpreted as the City of Mesa government.

The case looked at whether the process of injecting ink into the dermis of skin is “purely expressive activity,” meaning that the act of tattooing is a form of expression, or if the action is “conduct with an expressive component,” meaning that it has some type of expression but it is not at the core of the process.

The Arizona court ruled unanimously that tattoos and tattooing are forms of free speech. It said that tattoos, which contain words, messages and art, “may be purely decorative or serve religious, political, or social purposes.” It reinstated the Colemans’ lawsuit, which was returned for trial in a lower court. The Arizona justices based their decision partly on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Anderson v. City of Hermosa Beach, which said tattoos, the process of tattooing, and the business of tattooing are “forms of pure expression fully protected by the First Amendment.” In the lower court trial, the Colemans’ First Amendment rights will be weighed against the government’s right to regulate businesses.

But this case doesn’t mean that the First Amendment protects the act of tattooing everywhere. In the South Carolina Supreme Court case State v. White (2002), the court ruled that “the process of injecting dye to create the tattoo is not sufficiently communicative to warrant protections.”

What do you think?

Are tattoos or the act of tattooing a protected form of expression? By nature, is expression the central component of the act of tattooing, or is it merely a small part of the action? Did the Arizona Supreme Court make the right decision, or do you side with the South Carolina Supreme Court? Join the discussion and let us know what you think!
Join the Discussion
 
 
 
limited to 2000 characters including spaces  



Thank you for commenting.
Your comment is awaiting approval.
Click here to view all Speak Outs
Comments
1/31/2017
Murrieta/Ca
Angel
Mr.Jabro /mca
Forms of freedom of expression & speech have been used before the founding days of the United states and the creation of the constitution is considered one of those freedoms too, being now probably one of the most important documents of the United States of America which brings me to this topic of making tattoo parlors legal or getting a tattoo itself in this state legal. I believe that tattooing also fits in this category of free speech and freedom of expression because the practice does not really cause anything bad to happen its just a painting in a different type of canvas, if the person wanted to create them or have them in the first place it should not be a denied freedom. and if they have a big desire for this they can also just get their business in another state or get the tattoo in another state and come back so the law does not work too well in this different circumstances which could make the state even lose money, it could also lose the opportunity for those businesses to be have good economic impact on the state and other few benefits.

1/31/2017
Murrieta CA
Brianna Avila
Mr. Jabro/ MCA
I believe that people should express themselves with any art they want and what it means to them.

1/24/2017
Murrieta, Ca
Devin
mr.Jabro/MCA
I think that tattooing is a freedom is expression because people have been receiving tattoos for thousands of years in tribes around the world and it is a form of religion. They used these tattoos to express power and who was in charge. The Arizona court made the right decision because they said it was a freedom of speech to tattoo and or recive tattoos.

1/22/2017
Midlothian/Virginia
kirsten
mrs. Marple/Midlothian Middle School
I bielive that the Supreme Court of AZ make the correct dicision. People can express who they are in many forms, and tatoos are just one of the many ways. Therefore I bielive they should be a form of protected speech.

1/17/2017
Murrieta, CA
Chandler
Mr. Jabro/MCA
Through out the ages, people have used tattoos as a form of art to express things related to religion, social status and many other things. They were used to communicate certain points that the beholder wanted to express. Its no different today, whether someone wants to get a tattoo to express the loss of a loved one or to show respect, it's their right to. It is a form of speech which should be protected under the constitution.

1/17/2017
Murrieta, CA
Ralph
Mr. Jabro/MCA
I side with the Supreme Court of AZ. People have the right to free expression in many forms, including tattoos. South Carolina simply wants those seeking a tattoo to leave the State, get tattoed, and return home.

1/17/2017
Murrieta California
Owen
Mr.Jabro/mca
I think tattoos is a protected form of expression just that it is not said but written or pictured in the form of ink. Expression is not always the reason but it is one of the key components in deciding whether to get one or not!! I agree with Arizona because as i said before tattoos are like freedom of speech accept printed in ink not said.

1/17/2017
murrieta ca
anthony
jabro mca
I believe that tattoos are a form of showing person traits or past virtue and with each incision placed upon with ink is showing we have faith in the person next to us and people are naive to the incompetence or even intelligence of us adolescents which we are just as worthy as any adults and i feel the necessity to be able to inflict any modification to my body without breaking a law. -anthony

12/21/2016
Midlothian, VA
Jubilee
Mrs. Zaval, Midlothian Middle School
Truly tattoos are personal pictures that are on a persons body. It lets the person express who they are rather than verbally doing it. It would be the central component because expressing yourself leads a better lifestyle. I agree with the Arizona Supreme Court because tattoos can help the person to feel good about themselves rather than hiding it. Tattoos should be builded up than being abolished.

11/18/2016
Covington La
Samantha
Pennington
Tattoos are a form of self expression and should be protected, but with that said certain ones aren't in good taste or appropriate for certain environments. Tattoo shops are stigmatized with a bad reputation due to people with excessive amounts that can be interpreted as defacing the body along with vulgar or crude tattoos. If a city decides its not in the city's best interest to open a certain shop because it wont make there image too great, then they can stop it from being opened. If a particular business disagrees with your tattoos they have a right to make you cover them up same goes for hair color and clothing choices, just like the city has the power to prevent a tattoo parlor from opening for the same reasons.

11/18/2016
Covington, LA
Jack
Covington High School
I believe that the expression of tattoos as decorative features are forms of free speech, but depending on the reason/expression (such as teardrops under eyes or profanity) it should be limited in some cases. However, receiving a tattoo for religious reasons can be considered freedom of religion and speech, and cannot be forcibly removed without violating the first amendment.

10/31/2016
Plymouth Wisconsin
Levi
Biller PHS
I think as long as the artist of a tattoo is willing to give a tattoo then it should be allowed because it is their free expression.

10/31/2016
Plymouth WI
Isaac
Mrs. Biller/PHS
I thinks its OK but should limit some tattoos like teardrop.

10/31/2016
Plymouth, wisconsin
Ethan Joseph
Mrs. Biller
I believe that tattoos should have similar rights to clothing. People should be free to get any tattoo that they want, yet the tattoo is allowed to be forced to be covered for a job.

10/31/2016
Plymouth Wisconsin
Clayton Neese
Mrs.Biller PHS
I think tattoos should be a protected because it is art and you can make any kind of art in the usa and it is protected.

10/31/2016
Plymouth Wisconsin
Natalie
Mrs.Biller Plymouth High School
I think that they should be aloud to have tattoos. It is what they want to show on there body they should be able to show it. Its not harming any body in the act, so why not just get some tattoos and show what you want them to show.

10/31/2016
Plymouth/Wisconsin
Rilee
Mrs. Biller/ PHS
I believe that tattoos are a freedom of expression. It is art and and a way to express yourself on your body.

10/31/2016
Plymouth/ WI
Kathryn
Mrs. Biller/PHS
Even though I may not personally agree with them, tattoos are a form of symbolic speech and are therefore protected by the first amendment.

10/29/2016
Plymouth/WI
Carisa
Biller/PHS
I believe that tattoos should be a protected form of speech. Everyone has the right to do what they want to their own bodies and I can't control that. Some are distirbing

10/27/2016
PLymout?Wisconsin
Mason
Mrs.Biller PHS
I belive that tattos are just an exampe of freedom of speech. They are peices of art. Some of them are inapropriate but some are nice.

10/27/2016
Plymouth/WI
Alex
Mrs. Biller/PHS
I believe that tattoos are a protected form of speech because you have to make a conscious decision to get the tattoo. You have to make a decision about what is on them, which implies that you believe or agree with what is on them. This is basically the same thing as making a sign, which is protected.

10/27/2016
Plymouth, Wi
Nick
Biller/Plymouth
They shouldn't be protected because there just tatoos and they dont harm anything

10/27/2016
plymouth Wi
Lexi
Mrs. Biller Plymouth highschool
I think tattoos should be a form of protected speech because it is how people express themselves.

10/27/2016
Plymouth, WI
Reese
Plymouth Biller
yes because it is your chose to get one. yes because it expresses who you are.

10/27/2016
Plymouth wi
Kinsey Ninnemann
Biler Plymouth high school
I think it should not be protected because some jobs don't employ someone because they have a tattoo or too many tattoos and I think it should say that way

10/27/2016
Plymouth, Wisconsin
Dylan Ernst
Mrs. Biller/ Plymouth High School
I fell tattoos are your freedom of expression, people should be able to get any kind of tattoo that they want to anywhere on their bodies. This is a form of art, and these tattoos can show something that's important to you. No one, absolutely no one should tell you what to do about getting a tattoo and shouldn't reject to service you such as in a restaurant or something just for having a tattoo.

10/27/2016
plymouth wisconsin
Matt
Mrs Biller PHS
I think it should be protected in some cases. Some tattoos are inappropriate. But I think they should be protected.

10/27/2016
Wisconsin
Maggie
Mrs. Biller
Yes I think tattoos should be a form of protected speech. It is just like a symbol and they usually mean something that is important to you or your religion. It is your body so, you should be able to put whatever you want on your body. It also is not harming anyone else.

10/27/2016
Plymouth/Wisconsin
Kyle
Biller/Plymouth High School
I belive that tatooing ai an act of expression. It is a right that everyone has and it shouldn't be restricted. The tattoo that you get is your decisio

10/27/2016
Plymouth/Wi
Rosalia
Biller/PHS
I think that tattoos are a freedom of expression. Although certain tattoos are disturbing, I can't not respect that. People can do whatever they'd like to their bodies. Some tattoos are elegant and you should be able to do what you please.

10/27/2016
Plymouth, WI
Carolyn Britt
Mrs. Biller /Plymouth High school
i think that they should be a form of free speech. It's their choose to do this and it doesn't harm you in any way. It is simply a what that they express themselves.

10/27/2016
Plymouth Wisconsin
Kiley
Mrs.Biller Plymouth High School
I believe that tattoos are a freedom of expression. Tattoos are a way you can explain what you are feeling on your own body. As long it isn't hurting anyone it should be allowed.

9/23/2016
Murrieta/Ca
Elizabeth
Jabro/MCA
I believe that tattoos are a simple act of free expression. Tattoos is something beautiful that can be marked anywhere on your body and it can be represented as something important to you. And I don't think anyone should tell you what not go get, also it's your own body so you should do as you please.

9/21/2016
Murrieta
Jon Ramirez
Mr. Jabro
I believe that people have the right to have tattoos because it is a protected form of expression. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law...abridging of speech..."So anything that goes against the First Amendment is wrong. I believe the Supreme Courts decision was correct.

9/20/2016
murrieta
ajah
murrieta canyon
i think that tattoos are a way of trying to tell who you are. when people get a certain tattoo like a quote or a sign its most likely something that means something to them or they represent it.some people wont like the tattoos you have but personally i wouldn't listen to them , you should be free to do and say what you want, its your body.

9/19/2016
Murrieta
Omar Mata
Mr.jabro
yes i do believe that tattoos are a form of expression and that people should get permits to become a tattoo artist only if their good and some people make it a living to become a tattoo artist

9/19/2016
Murrieta/ California
Matthew M.
Mr. Jabro/ Murrieta Canyon Academy
There are those who have discriminating tattoos on their body and are showing their form of their expression. Personally, I think that anyone should be able to do what they want to their body. Why should anyone stop you from being you? So do like N.W.A. and "express yourself".

9/19/2016
murrieta
jaz cueva
jabro
Tattoos are a form of protected speech, although tattoos can simply express your own opinion on what you think art is it can also hold a certain meaning to someone. So yes I agree with Arizona supreme court on their decision of tattoos being a form of expression.

9/19/2016
california
River
MCA
Tattooing has become a special art for some people, and has given them a way to express themselves why take that away? As a financial stand point, tattoo shops bring the U.S a substantial amount economic value.

9/19/2016
murrieta/ca
roxanne bolanos
mr.jabro/MCA
i think that the state should not decide how or where a person can express their feelings and expressions . tattoos don not symbolize something bad and if a tattoo is appropriate for a citizen in a state then a tattoo shop should be no different . i think tattoos are a form of protected speech

9/19/2016
murrieta
leo
jabro/murrieta canyon academy
I think getting tattoos is a good way to show what you represent. It gives people an idea on what kind of person you are. I believe that people judge to much when they people with tattoos , they think there up to no good or they actually love it.

9/19/2016
Murrieta CA
Destiny Lewis
Mr. Jabro Murrieta Canyon Academy
I think that everyone is entitled to getting a tattoo if they want to. The government shouldn't say that a person can't get a tattoo it is a persons right to express themselves in whatever legal way that they want to. One of these ways is in the form of a tattoo.

9/19/2016
murrieta
lila
Mr. jabro/ breekside
I think that tattoos are a protected form of expression. Most of the time people get tattoos to express themselves and everybody should be able to express themselves. courts shouldn't be able to make the choice of what goes on a persons body.

9/19/2016
california
sonny martinez
Murrieta Canyon Academy
I personally am interested in getting tattoos and I have grown up among military men so tattoos seem very normal to me I think tattoos that have meaning should be protected as it could be very special to the person who has it I don't think the art of tattooing should be made an issue of law though even if others feel that it may damage a community or workplace my dad being in the navy I have seen very professional men covered in tattoos

9/19/2016
Murrieta/CA
Evans James
Mr. Jabro/ Creekside High School
I agree that tattooing yourself is an act of self-expression because, as stated in the Constitution, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..." Although tattoos can not speak, they still show the persons' identity. Its your body not the governments, so then get a tattoo If you want. The Arizona Supreme Court did make the right decision and I agree with it.

9/19/2016
murrieta
cameron hayhoe
Mr. Jabro/ creekside high school
Tattoos can be whatever that person wants them to be. A lot of people get them and that ink means something important to them, maybe something that reminds them of a loved one or just anything that they believe is important. There should not even be a discussion on whether people can get them or not, it is their body and they can do what they please.

9/16/2016
Sidney/ Montana
Nick Ullman
Mr. Lewis/ Sidney High School
Tattoos should be concidered a form of expression because some may mean nothing at all and may only be ink while others could be a persons beliefs or opinions on a specific topic.

9/16/2016
Sidney/ Montana
Casey
Mr. Lewis/ Sidney High School
I personally think that you should be able to do whatever you want with your body with out anyone getting upset with it. I have 6 tattoos and I would like many more so I think that if I am pround of my tattoos that I will represent them.

9/15/2016
Murrieta, CA
Maurice
Mr.Jabro Murrieta Canyon Academy
Even those who have Nazi Insignia's in America are expressing a protected form of expression to do so, even if it doesn't seem right. I do not side with the South Carolina Supreme Court, if tattoos aren't protected under the constitution other things should not be.

9/14/2016
Murrieta ca
Brittany
Jabro/MCA
Tattoos are just another way for people to express themselfs by getting what ever you like to be inked onto your skin forever and showing it off to the world to see

9/12/2016
Canton/MI
Myranda
Mr. Fite/Canton Preparatory High School
I believe that tattoos are both protected forms of expression because it does express who you are what you came from. It is also a form of free speech. Tattoos serve a story on your body to show the world who you are.

5/12/2016
Hoover, Al
Mariah Muhammad
Parker/Spain Park High School
Tattoos are a protected form of expression. Tattoos are a part of art and can be expressed freely no matter if it is accepted or rejected. They can have a meaning that you would always cherish. No one should have any control on someones ability of getting a tattoo or not. The Arizona Supreme Court made the right decision. It is a small part of action but you can still express yourself in many ways.

5/12/2016
Murrieta/ CA
Nathaniel
Mr. Jabro/ Creekside High School
I think that tattoos and tattooing are both protected forms of expression. Some people get tattoos in order to have a memory of something or it just means a lot to them. I agree with the Arizona Supreme Court in saying, "tattoos and tattooing are forms of free speech." They also say that it, "may be purely decorative or serve religious, political, or social purposes." I totally agree with this, my statement earlier saying that it may serve a great purpose to the person getting the said tattoo.

4/27/2016
Rudyard/MT
Graysen
Mrs. Campbell/North Star High School
Tattoos themselves are a form of protected speech. However, the act of tattooing is not. I side with the South Carolina Supreme Court because injecting dye is not a form of expression, therefore it should not be protected. The tattoo itself should be because it is your body and you are expressing yourself.

4/7/2016
Murrieta/CA
Trevor
Mr.J/Creekside High
In my opinion, tattoos are a form of self-expression. The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech…” Tattoos shows creativity, but it also expresses a person’s beliefs or a person’s personality. For others, tattoos represent their identity (who they are). In other words, tattoos is considered to be a freedom of speech. I believe expression is the central component of the act of tattooing, and not only a small part of the action. I agree with Arizona Supreme Court because the court stated that “...tattoos contain words, messages and art, “may be purely decorative or serve religious, political, or social purposes.” The court ruled unanimously that tattoos and tattooing are forms of freedom of speech.

4/6/2016
Rudyard/MT
Jalissa
Mrs. Campbell/North Star High School
I think that tattoos are a form of protected speech because it is your body. Your body is one of the things that you truly own. I think that you can do whatever you want with it. A tattoo is a way to express a persons individuality, and to take that priliage away would be unAmerican. If you don't like tattoos, don't get one. Also most people don't have a distastefull amount of tattoos.

3/20/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Jullian
Mr.Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
I believe that tattoos are a form of protected speech. I believe this because people can get tattoos to change there appearance without people stopping them. As long as the tattoo doesn't offend anyone it can individualize the person who gets it. That is why I believe this.

3/19/2016
Stroudsburg,PA
Matt
Mr. Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
Tattoos are a form of protected speech that show peoples personality and how they are. Tattoos make someone express who they are without words. I agree with the Arizona Supreme Court that tattoos are a form of protected speech. Its not hurting anyone unless they express themselves, the tattoos say it for them.

3/18/2016
Stroudsburg/PA
Jonathan Rosenblatt
Mr.Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
Yes tatoos are a form of protected speech.although Tatoos can be simply a way to make one's body look better, they can also be use to express their thoughts or self.So yes I agree with the Arizona Supreme Court on their decision of tattoos being a form of expression

3/18/2016
Strudsburg, PA
Jahnel D
Mr. Hanna Stroudsburg
Tattoos are a form of expression that should protected by the First Amendment as long as they don't violate another person's rights. Tattoos don't hurt anyone else. I side with the Arizona Supreme Court because these people where just helping others express themselves in a way that wasn't harmful to others.

3/18/2016
Stroudsburg Pa
Uzoya
Mr.Hanna/ Stroudsburg JHS
Tattoos mean different things to different people. Tattoos can mean something or could be just for decoration. I agree with the Arizona Supreme Court tattoos are apart of freedom of expression. If you find something offensive tattooed on someone's body deal with it. If it's a student or an employe have then cover it up and be over with the problem instead of keep carrying it out.

3/17/2016
stroudsburg/PA
paige
mr.hanna/stroudsburg JHS
I believe that tattoos are a form or Freedom of Speech. I agree with the Arizona Supreme Court, anyone should be allowed to do what they want. They don't need permission for what they want. I think that tattoos are a way for people to show a liking to something.

3/17/2016
stroudsburg/PA
paige
mr.hanna/stroudsburg JHS
I believe that tattoos are a form or Freedom of Speech. I agree with the Arizona Supreme Court, anyone should be allowed to do what they want. They don't need permission for what they want. I think that tattoos are a way for people to show a liking to something.

3/16/2016
Whittier, CA
Sandra
Mrs. Bernal/RioHondoCollege
I agree with Arizona Court. I had kept myself from tattoos in certain areas of my body because of the simple fact that I might not have the same chance in a hiring process to someone who has no tattoos. I am wondering if this case went any further and if there might be any chances here in California reguarding this case. I'm excited to possibly get the tattoo I wanted after all!

3/16/2016
East stroudsburg
Aaron
Mr Hannah/JHS
I believe that tattoos are a form of freedom of speech and I agree with the Arizona Supreme Court with their decision .I believe tatoos are a choice you can express what your beliefs are. Some people like adorning their bodies with names of loved ones. Getting a tattoo is a personal choice

3/16/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Emily M.
Mr.Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
I believe that Tattoos are a form of Freedom of Speech. I agree with the Arizona Supreme Court. Tattoos are your own choice and you can express what you believe in. Also you might think that it looks nice. Some people put the names of loved ones on their body. Getting a tattoo is your own choice.

3/16/2016
Stroudsburg/ PA
Asia H.
Mr. Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
I agree with the Arizona Supreme Court's conclusion that tattoos are a form of free speech. Freedom of speech means the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint, so why is it "unconstitutional" to have a tatoo that expresses your belief or opinion? Yes, it is possible to get offended by someones tatoo, but isnt it possible for that to happen with someones speech. The tattoo, unlike someones speech, only affects that person with it. It is not up to the Supreme Court to decide what tattoo someone can get and what someone can't. Tattoos are a freedom of speech and a freedom of expression and no one has the right to take that away

3/16/2016
Stroudsburg
Bridget Clark
Mr Hanna Sroudsburg Junior High School
I think that tattoos should be aloud and part of freedom of speech because it is others opinions and they can put anything they want in a form of tattooing. Basically I think it's an art on people's body and it has meaning and if it has meaning and it is what they want to have on their skin forever then it's their choice. I am for the Arizona choice and I do believe that it is a freedom of speech.

3/15/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Jessica
Mr. Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
Tattoos are used to express you and your personal interests. They could hold a special meaning to you or even symbolize something regarding a religion, group, decorative etc. Although, putting ink on your skin isn't the only way to convey, the Arizona Supreme Court still proves a point because no ones personal rights should be taken away especially if it associates with your own body.

3/15/2016
Stroudsburg Pennsylvania
Teshi J
Mr. Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
I believe that tattoos and the act of tattooing is a form of protection. Therefore, yes! I agree with the Arizona Surpreme Court. For one, people have tattoos are showing their interest in activities they take part in. It shows other people the activities these people might take part in and what they strongly believe in. If people want to express themselves by ink connection, let them. Tattooing might be a stress reliever for some people and it's something us as human have to accept. Tattoo or not the government should accept your decision no matter what.

3/15/2016
Stroudsburg PA
Luke B
Me. Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
I think tattooing is a protected form of expressing. When people get a tattoo, they are expressing themselves. Expressing themselves can be anything they would like it to be. So I agree with the Arizona Supreme Court.They should allow tattoos because it's the people's decision to get a tattoo if they want, and the parlor isn't harming anybody being there.

3/15/2016
Stroudsburg PA
Luke B
Me. Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
I think tattooing is a protected form of expressing. When people get a tattoo, they are expressing themselves. Expressing themselves can be anything they would like it to be. So I agree with the Arizona Supreme Court.They should allow tattoos because it's the people's decision to get a tattoo if they want, and the parlor isn't harming anybody being there.

3/15/2016
Storudsburg PA
Ricardo
Mr.Hanna JH
Tatoos are a form of expression, because if you think about people get a tatoo to express a certain feeling or emotion. Some people may even say that tatoos are a form of art so wouldnt that make art not a way to express your self. By nature i think that expression is the central componet of tatooing because people get tatoos with words and poctures so that they can show people how they feel and what they believe in. I think that Arizona did make the right decision because tatoos are a way to a express your beliefs and feelings just like any other art or type of expression

3/15/2016
Stroudsburg, pa
Tristan
Mr. Hanna/stroudsburg jhs
I agree with the Arizona Surpreme Court, I believe that tattoos are a protected form of expression. Many people get tattoos, they are showing what their interests are and what their opinions are on their feelings. Some people get tattoos and they all have a meaning.it may be something personal or just a memory they had, or a reminder

3/15/2016
Stroudsburg/ PA
Asia H.
Mr. Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
I agree with the Arizona Supreme Court's conclusion that tattoos are a form of free speech. Freedom of speech means the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint, so why is it "unconstitutional" to have a tatoo that expresses your belief or opinion? Yes, it is possible to get offended by someones tatoo, but isnt it possible for that to happen with someones speech. The tattoo, unlike someones speech, only affects that person with it. It is not up to the Supreme Court to decide what tattoo someone can get and what someone can't. Tattoos are a freedom of speech and a freedom of expression and no one has the right to take that away

3/15/2016
PA
Emily
Stroudsburg JHS
Tattoos are definitely a form of protected speech. They are no different from writing on paper, other than the fact it's on human skin. I think the act of the tattooing, and what's written should both be a form of protected expression. The act of tattooing is definitely an important component. It's just like the act of writing or drawing, only on someone's skin. I side with the Arizona Supreme Court's decision. In the South Carolina Supreme Court case they ruled "the process of injecting dye to creat the tattoo is not sufficiently communicative to warrant protections." This is basically the same as saying "the process of scratching graphite against a paper to create an essay is not sufficiently communicative to warrant protections." This completely disregards the whole meaning of creating a tattoo. All this recognizes is the action, not the whole. They just phrase it that way to make it sound like tattoos are just ink, without any meaning or purpose. The act of creating a tattoo is not just injecting ink into skin it is creating a piece of art with definite meaning and an act of expression.

3/15/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Leo
Mr.Hanna/Stroudsburg Junior High
I believe that tattooing is a form of protected speach. I believe that people have the right to do whatever they want with there bodies. I also believe that people should not be irrational and have tattoos that promote terrorism or racism.

3/15/2016
Stroudsburg/PA
Amber F
Me.Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
I believe that tattooed are a form of free speech. Everybody has the right of freedom of speech in America, whether it is getting a nose piercing or getting a mullet it is all freedom of speech. Nobody has the power to take that away from you. That is way it was wrong for the Supreme Court to have denied Ryan and Laetita Coleman from opening their tattoo parlor.

3/15/2016
Stroudsburg, Pa
Tiffany
Mr.Hanna/ Stroudsburg JHS
I agree with the Arizona Surpreme Court, I believe that tattoos are a protected form of expression. Many people get tattoos, they are showing what their interests are and what their opinions are on things. It is your body and you can do whatever you want to it so I think that the city was wrong by telling the tattoo parlor that it wasn't a good thing to have in the neighborhood. Having the tattoo parlor there won't cause any damage to the neighborhood, they can't force people to get tattoos.

3/15/2016
Stroudsburg Pennsylvania
Brianna
Mr. Hanna/ stroudsburg JHS
I think that tattoos and tattooing is a form of expression and we should have our freedom for self expression am I right? So Having a tattoo May Not be your thing but if someone wants a tattoo then so what it's their body, just let them have the dang tattoo! I agree with the Arizona surpreme court that tattoos are a form of self expression and that should be protected.

3/15/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Michael K
Me.Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
Tattoos are a form of speech because some people get tattoos to express them selves or to show feelings for someone. Some people get tattoos to also represent someone that was important to them like there parents or close family members that had passed away. I disagree with the South Carolina Supreme Court

3/15/2016
Stroudsburg Pennsylvania
Nandee C
Mr.Hana Stoudsburg JHS
Expression- expressing or setting forth with words, illustrations,or actions . I believe that tattoos at be fitting of that definition and limiting ones freedom of expression is without a doubt unconstitutional. Tattooing is a form of art that allows people to express themselves in a way that makes them feel good and they have ever right to do so. The right to express oneself is the first amendment because it is the one that comes first before the others, and the government should be protecting citizens rights,like the Arizona Supreme Court. So I disagree with th South Carolina Supreme Court; tattooing is a form of self expression and should be protected.

3/15/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Shawn
Mr. Hannah/Stroudsburg JHS
I believe that tattoos are, and should always be a form of protected speech. Although the matter of tattoos being purely for expression is debatable. There are many people who get a tattoo to express their opinions, but there are also people who simply get one to look tough. However, if the state government were to deny a tattoo parlor because of one group, it would, indeed, violate the right of free speech. People should be able to express themselves in any way they want to. This is probably what the Colemans thought as well, and that's why they mentioned the First Amendment during their case. If someone wants to inject ink into the dermis of the skin to express themselves , why should we associate them with a gang, and limit their free speech by doing so? Not every tattoo is associated with something inappropriate. Despite the fact that there are people that will abuse this right, tattoos are a form of protected speech, I believe that it was Arizona that made the right decision not to limit them.

3/15/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Asarel
Mr.Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
I think tattoos are a protected form of expression, it's each individuals decision weather or not to tattoo themselves. I also do believe there must be some limits though on what type of things people tattoo an themselves, for example something that threatens the country then that shouldn't be allowed, as long as the tattoo is kept appropriate then it's each persons decision. Excessive tattooing I believe is taking advantage of the right to tattoo themselves, if someone tattoos their whole body then there's no point in tattooing! All this being said, I agree with the South Carolina Supreme Court because although people might just do it to express themselves I think children should also be taken into consideration, and the Supreme Court does what's best for the safety of all Americans.

3/15/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Eryk D
Mr.Hanna
I think the act of tattooing is a protected form of expression. Tatoos express how most people feel about themselves and certain issues. I agree with the Arizona supreme court that tatooing should

3/15/2016
Stroudsburg,PA
Alice
Mr.Hanna\Stroudsburg JHS
I agree with the Arizona Supreme court in believing that tattoos are a protected form of free speech. I think the Arizona Supreme Court has made the right decision because having a tattoo of something you deeply feel for is a form of self expression and self expression is a form of free speech. Just because it is permanently inked onto a body does not make it any different from the person saying it out loud. If a person makes this desicion because of his or her own will, the government should have to respect that because the person can do whatever he or she desires to do with their body cause afterall it is their body.

3/15/2016
Stroudsburg JHS
Zoe
Mr.Hanna
Tattooing is a form of self expression and let's people show and express certain things that words can not, in other words it's art. We all have our way of showing and expressing ourselves so if some people decide to do it through tattooing then they should be given that right not denied it. The Arizona Supreme Court made the right decision by ruling that tattooing is a form of free speech because that's exactly what it is. If people are to get hurt or injured during the actions they take then that is on them, but it is not the state's job to deny people of self-expression.

3/15/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Elizabeth
Mr. Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
I agree with the Arizona Supreme Court's conclusion: tattoos are a form of free speech. Just like other things, such as clothing or jewelry, tattoos are symbols of self-expression. Tattoo parlors are not directly harmful in any way, and people should be able to healthily express themselves as they see fit without government interference.

3/15/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Gigi S.
Mr. Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
I agree with the Arizona Supreme Court, in the sense that tattoos are a protected form of expression. People almost always get tattoos for the sole purpose of expressing who they are or what they believe in. They are free individuals in a free country, and have the right to do what they want to their bodies. I believe that the city was wrong to tell the couple that their tattoo parlor was "not in the best interest of the neighborhood." It would not be hurting anyone just by being there. Nobody would be forced to go in and get a tattoo or even walk by. There is nothing wrong with tattoos and they are just another form of self expression. If they can write it on paper, they should be allowed to write it on their bodies.

3/15/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Tojah J
Mr. Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
I believe that tattoos are a form of protected speech. Tattoos are a form of protected speech because I feel like people get tattoos because their body is a canvas and they want to put more art on their bodies to feel more beautiful. Now, if someone were to get words on their body, they obviously feel that what ever they want to say, is that important that they have to put it on their bodies forever, and they feel very strongly about what ever they have to say, that they will never change their minds about it and print it on their body.

3/15/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Nick
Mr.Hanna/stroudsburg JHS
Yes tattoos are a form of expression through appearance and it is the decision of the person getting the tattoo wether or not they will express themselves in that way I agree with the Arizona Supreme Court because people should be able to express themselves in any way they want

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Gabrielle
Mr. Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
I think that tattoos or the act of tattooing is infact a protected form of expression because of the reason that it is someone's decision to get a tattoo, and it is how they like to express themselves. Whether it is because someone gets a tattoo to show love, or a symbol of their personality, it is how they express themselves. I agree with the Arizona Supreme Court because It is not up to the South Carolina Supreme Court to tell people a tattoo parlor is not appropriate. That is an opinion of theirs and not fair to people who want a tattoo parlor and think it is appropriate.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg PA
Luke B
Me. Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
I think tattooing is a protected form of expressing. When people get a tattoo, they are expressing themselves. Expressing themselves can be anything they would like it to be. So I agree with the Arizona Supreme Court.They should allow tattoos because it's the people's decision to get a tattoo if they want, and the parlor isn't harming anybody being there.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Nasir
Mr. Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
I strongly believe that tattoos are a protected form of expression because it could express the way you feel. Also because it could be a symbol of what you believe in. However, I think tattooing is a small part of the central component of expression because some people just get tattoos because they think they look cool. I think the Arizona Supreme Court made the right decision because most of the people in the world get tattoos to symbolize something or have a meaning.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Jayden
Mr. Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
Tattoos are indeed a protected form of expression. Tattoos help bring out feelings of a person. So many people of today's population have tattoos. Some are in memory of others or to even to show the true value of ones self in a picture describing themselves. Though this may be true, I agree with the South Carolina Supreme Court. A tattoo parlor may not be appropriate in that exact area. Children are important and should be a first priority.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Natalia
Mr.Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
I believe that tattoos are a way to express themselves. Everybody should be allowed to express yourself by tattoo. Because people get their tattoos for their personal preference of why they are getting it. People should feel comfortable with their bodies. In my opinion the Arizona Supreme Court did the right thing saying that tattoos are free forms of speech

3/14/2016
stroudsburg
Lisa muccio
Mr. Hanna / jhs
although I think the city of Mesa has the absolute right to deny the Colemans or anyone else who tries to open a tattoo parlor in that area the allowance to open one, I firmly believe that tattoos are a protected form of self expression. Tattoos can portray pictures or symbols for decorating or because of that person's liking or a deeper meaning of self values. Tattoos do not harm anymore (in a way more than the process of being tattooed) so i don't see how it could be a bad model for the youth of the city because art should be an appreciated thing and not judged just because it is on your body. After saying all this, I agree with the South Carolina Supreme Court because the city still reserves the right of allowing the opening of a tattoo parlor even though personally, it isn't the tattoo that harms the children, it's that the children are taught to look at tattoos and bad and wrong tht harms the children.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Alexia
Mr.Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
I do agree that tattoos or tattooing is a form of protected speech. Many people want to get or have tatoos because it reminds them of something that means a lot to them, or people get them because they resemble symbols or something that they love to do. Court should not be able to take that right away from the people. And for that reason I do agree with the Arizona Supreme Court because they fought for people having the right to express themselves in different ways. Also many people want to be different in a ways compared to others, they can do whatever they want to do to let them accomplish that.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Andrew
Mr. Hanna/ Stroudsburg JHS
I think that tattoos or tattooing is a protected form of expression. I think the whole tattoo is an expression not just something fancy on your body. For example my dad has many tattoos, one being the name of his wife and my mom. This isn't to show off its a form of expression of love. I agree with the Arizona Supreme Court because I for one think tattoos or the act of tattooing should be a protected expression.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Alexia
Mr.Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
I do agree that tattoos or tattooing is a form of protected speech. Many people want to get or have tatoos because it reminds them of something that means a lot to them, or people get them because they resemble symbols or something that they love to do. Court should not be able to take that right away from the people. And for that reason I do agree with the Arizona Supreme Court because they fought for people having the right to express themselves in different ways. Also many people want to be different in a ways compared to others, they can do whatever they want to do to let them accomplish that.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg, pa
Ashley C.
Mr. Hanna / stroudsburg JHS
I think tattoos are a way to express yourself. I agree with the Arizona Supreme Court because it lets people express them self. The tattoo might mean something special to them. Also there is no law where you can't have tattoos expecially when it's not harmful to others.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg PA
Mahedi
Mr.Hana/Stroudsburg jhs
Tattoos are a form of self expression like belifs or something you just like. So I disagree with the South Carolina supreem court disition. Tatuing is a form of free speech and cannot be taken away.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Waqar M.
Mr. Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
I feel like having tattooes isn't a bad a bad thing. Its a form of speech, with has its freedom. Also it's art, art that is just different because its on people's bodies. But having inappropriate tattoos should not be legal or allowed since children could see that and they shouldn't be able to if there was a limit or boundary that tattoos especially can't cross. So I feel like no one should deny someone opening a tattooes shop IF the tattooes are appropriate and safe to have on the skin. Tattooe stores should be closed if the tattooes are very inappropriate and the way they put the tatooes on the person is In a very bad, dangerous way.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Ryan Lowe
Me. Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
I strongly disagree with the remarks of what the Supreme Court of South Carolina stated, that tattoos show no communicative to warrant protections. I don't think they have the right to tell people what is right and what is wrong for their body because at the end of the day, the person who has the tattoo is the one who chose it and went through with the process

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Paige
Me. Hannah/ Stroudsburg JHS
I agree with the Arizona Supreme Court. Tattoos are a form of expression and you get them to express yourself and have the things you love permanently inked on your body. Tattoos can have a deep meaning to someone, and it is your body and you should be allowed to do what you want with your body.

3/14/2016
stroudsburg PA
collin
stroudsburg JHS
I agree that tattooing is a part of free speech and that everyone has the right to put ink on their own body if they want to. I feel like this whole thing is apart of something bigger but they just don't want to admit it and blame the whole thing on tattoos.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Gabby
Mr. Hanna/JRHS
I feel like tattoos should be allow and protected because it's a way for people express and show they're body they way they would like to. Government should not have control over another person's body, they should do what they want and how they want to they're own body as long as its the appropriate age requirement.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg,PA
Ali
Mr.Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
I agree that tattoos or the act of tattooing is an acceptable for of expression. I don't believe it is an central component of tattoos, I think it is just a portion of the action. I think the Arizona Court made the right decision because the citizens should be able to have the freedom of expression.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Samuel W.
Mr. Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
I believe that tattooing is an expression but not for everything. If it is for beliefs and religion then it is okay because some religions make you where tattoos. To wear tattoos just has a symbol isn't a form of expression part of the First Amendment. I say this because it would just be decorating your body if you put tattoos on it. They may stabd for something but aren't a form of expression, so the act of tattoing is sometimes the central part of expression but not always. In this case I support the South Carolina Supreme Court and their decision.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg, P. A.
Sara
Mr. Hanna/ Stroudsburg JHS
I think that tattoos are a form of expression because someone that has a tattoo of a college mascot can resemble his/hers alma mater. I think that expression is a central concept of tattooing. The Arizona Supreme Court did indeed make the right decision as " unanimously that tattoos and the art of tattooing are forms of free speech. "

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Nick Gomez
Mr. Hanna Stroudsburg Junior High School
I think that tattoos are protected forms of expression because you can put what ever you want on your body. I think that it is a small action because you can express yourself in many ways. I think the Arizona Supreme Court made the right decision because I think it is freedom of speech.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Ahmed
Mr.hanna/stroudsburg JHS
I agree with arizona supreme court because U.S is a free country. People can do to their skins whatever they want. They can put ink in their body. As long as its appropriate. Now days, people get tattoos not to just show the art. They want to show their feeling by drawing it on their body. It's a free country people can do whatever they want unless its a bad/dangerous thing.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg PA
Miguel
Mr.Hanna Stroudsburg sjhs
I agree with the people because the tattooing is one form to express yourself, also the people decide how to express themselves and if they want to have ink on the body and on the other hand they don't want the people to have tattoos.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg PA
Miguel
Mr.Hanna Stroudsburg sjhs
I agree with the people because the tattooing is one form to express yourself, also the people decide how to express themselves and if they want to have ink on the body and on the other hand they don't want the people to have tattoos.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg Pa
Eric
Mr.Hanna/stroudsburg jhs
I think tattoos are a protected form of expression. I think expression is a key component of tattoos. Whenever you see someone with a tatto they can tell you exactly what each one means to you. I think the Arizona Supreme Court made the correct decision in this case because they can't take away anyone's rights.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Manny Fors
Mr. Hanna/ Stroudsburg JHS
I believe that tattoos are most definitely a protected form of expressionism since they are used to express one's expressions or feeling(s). The whole tattoo is an expression of something whether it be a dragon or the name of a loved one. However, I side with the South Carolina Supreme Court because the city has every right to deny the placement of a tattoo parlor if they think it will be a negative influence to children that might live there or any of the other residence there.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Ashley
Mr. Hannah/Stroudsburg JHS
I agree with the Arizona Suprime Court because tattoos are ways many people in America express themselves today. I believe that tattoos are a form of protective speech because they have become an art, tattoos are like paintings/drawlings on your body that you get in order to express yourself. Like an old Chinies Proverb says "A picture is worth a thoudsand words". So by people like South Carolina Supriem Court saying that tattooing is not a form of communicate and shouldn't be protected by the first amendment we are saying that any sort of art is not significant communication and the first amendment does not pretect it. Tattoos cost a decent amount of money to get and cause he/she getting the tattoo much pain so why would a person get a tattoo unless they want to express something about themselves or show their interests. So there for I believe that tattoos are symbol that represents something about he/she who has one, causing it a form of speech, so I think that the first amendment should protect tattoos because of how in today's society we view art as a way to tell a story without using words.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg/ PA
Hala E.
Mr.Hanna/ SJHS
I believe that tattooes are a form of protected speech. When a person decides to get a tattoo it's to symbolize something they feel strongly about or a way of expressing themselves. I don't think anyone should be able to control a persons actions or thoughts, so If someone wanted to put ink on their body they should have the right to do so. I wholeheartedly agree with the Arizona Court on this discussion. They ruled that tattooes are a form of protected speech, as should everyone due to the first amendment. All in all, I believe that tattooes should be accepted as a form of protected expression.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Madison
Mr. Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
I believe that the Arizona Supreme Court made the right decision by ruling that tattoos are a protected form of expression, and should be allowed anywhere. I agree with them because most people do not get tattoos for the fun of it. Say someone has lost a family member and would like a tattoo to remember them. That shows that getting tattoos really helps some people express themselves. Getting tattoos also helps people who are not mentally understood, express their feelings in the way of art on their body. Tattoos will make them feel more comfortable and satisfied with themselves. That is why I think tattoos are a protected form of expression, and the Arizona Supreme Court made the right decision by supporting it.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
AJ Schito
Mr. Hanna/ Stroudsburg JHS
I agree with the Arizone Supreme Court. The people who are getting tattoos are only expressing themselves and it would be unconstitutional to take their right away. The city was wrong in saying that the tattoo parlor "wasn't appropriate for the location." If the tattoos are not harming anyone or express offensive feelings, that person has the right to have that tattoo and the first amendment protects that right. If other forms of art are aloud why wouldn't tattoos be?

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg PA
Caroline
Mr.Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
I agree with the Arizona Supreme Court. I believe that tattoos are a form of protected speech for many reasons. People get tattoos for personal interests such as symbols, something they love, or im memory of someone. People shouldn't be stopped for expressing how they feel if its on their own bodies anyway. They should have the right to do what they want to their bodies and no one should try to prevent this. People will tattoos are just trying to be themselves and I respect that.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg, Pa
Isabel A.
Hanna
I belive that tattoos are a way to express themeselves. This is a form of protected speech, if a person chooses to get a tattoo it is their choice. Most people get tattoos to symbolize something important to them. As a citizen in the United States of America, you are expected to be living in a free country with rights. Because it is the person's body, they should be allowed to do whatever they want with it. This city didn't have the right to tell where the tattoo parlor was being put, they also had no rights to say that It was not appropriate. They claimed to be trying to protect their city... but from what? Many people are covered with tattoos, they see it as a way to express themselves. Tattoos are art, and the city wouldn't stop an art studio being put in its place. A person should not be limited to the amount of tattoos that they want. As a free person, it is your choice to decide wether or not they want a tattoo. Therefore, I think that tattooing should be protected by the Amendments.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg,PA
Hannah
Mr.Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
I think that tattooing is a form of expressing and it should be allowed anywhere because it uses words and pictures, like books or a written or drawn document, which are protected by the first ammendmant. Except, tattoos are put on your skin. So I definetely agree with the Arizona Supreme Court since tattooing is a form of expressing yourself.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg
Selena London
Mr. Hanna/ Stroudsburg JHS
I agree with the Arizona court. Tattoos are a form of expression, tattoos are Art. And if you want to put art on your body you should be allowed to with no problem. It's a form of freedom of speech and no one is allowed to take away that right.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg PA
Carter H.
Mr.Hanna/ Stroudsburg JHS
I feel that tattoos are a form of protected expression. People should be allowed to get whatever tattoo they want, it is their body. The government shouldn't tell people that they can't open a shop, where are people going to go for a tattoo. The Arizona Supreme Court did do a good job because it is denying their freedom. Expression is only a small part of the tattooing process because people could get one for many different reasons, such as for show or because it looks cool. Therefore, I feel that it is a form of protected expression.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Mark R
Mr Hanna/Stroudsburg
I think that the Arizona stte supreme court made the right decision, because it is up to the people to decide whether or not they want to get a tattoo and there is no way to deem a business that provides a way for people to express themselves as innapropriate, since that would be a violation of first amendment rights

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Hope
Mr. Hanna/ Stroudsburg JHS
I feel that tattoos are a free form of expression, just like painting on a canvas. The only difference is that the canvas is skin. Expression is the the basis for all things art-related, so if you'd like to put an illustration of a tiger eating a pizza on your arm, then you should be allowed to. If you want to open up a tattoo shop, I feel the same rule applies. I feel the Arizona Supreme Court made the right decision, and protected those peoples' freedoms.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg JHS
Noah C.
Hanna/SJHS
Tattoos are a form of expression, they show peoples personalities and speak for the person who has the tattoos. However, Normally in this time period, tattoos are of pointless images that look cool. I would not say that expression is the main reason for tattooing. I would say it is part of it. I will still side with the Arizona Supreme Court because a lot of tattoos still hold expression.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Anthony K
Mr.Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
I believe that tattoos are a form of free speech. Tattoos help people remember loved ones that may have passed or maybe to resemble a significant someone in their life. I wholely agree with the Arizona Supreme Court.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg/PA
Niamh
Mr. Hanna/ SJHS
I believe that tattoos should be a nationally protected as a form of free speech. Thinking logically, tattoos are a form of visual art, which is protected by the First Amendment, therefore tattoos are a form of free speech protected by the constitution.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg
Emma Scott
Mr.Hanna
I agree with the Arizona Supreme Court, tattoos are a way of self expression. If people want to express themselves let them! How is it harming the Supreme Court? Tattoos are symbolic, they show what people believe in. This is America! People should be able to do whatever they choose, as long as they are not harming themselves or others.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg PA
shane E
mr.Hanna/stroudsburg JHS
I agree with the people because the first amendment states that the freedom of speech can't be outlawed by the government. Also it's the people's choices if they want to inject ink into their body. But anyways on the other hand I kind of see why they said no to the ratio shop because maybe they didn't want their citizens to have tatoos.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg/Pennsylvania
Angel
Stroudsburg JHS
I believe that tattooing is a part of free speech and that it should allowed everywhere.If the tattoo is religious or just for decorating and expressing who you are.people get tattoos for the protest from expression. I believe that the city was wrong to tell the couple that their tattoo parlor was " not in the best interest of the neighborhood. This country was made by people that wanted freedom and I think that is who it chur say because when we are together we rise and aprt we fall

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Nkosi
Mr.Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
I think the Arizona Supreme Court did the right thing. People should have the right to get tattoos to express their feelings and beliefs and the government shouldn't walk in here and tell the people that they couldn't open their tattoos parlor. Some tattoos don't even really mean anything personal so I think the Arizona Supreme Court did the right thing.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg/PA
Lauren
Mr.Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
Tattooing is a putting ink into you body and harming your self,so I feel that getting a tattoo is your choice. I belevie that South Carolina Suprem court was a good idea becuase we do have our freedom so if we get a tattoo it's involving the person who have got the tattoo. I understand that people with tattoos usually have a story so you feel that your shoes express your self. People shouldn't be limited because they feel they should get/have a tattoo so I agree with South Carolina Supreme Court and have that couple have their tattoo place.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg/ Pennsylvania
Gabriella L.
Mr.Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
I agree with the Arizona Supreme Court, tattoos should be treated as a protected form of expression. It is very common for humans to get tattoos that mean something to them or express their feelings. Citizens come to America to have rights and freedom, Freedom of speech is protected by the first amendment. The city was wrong to say that the tattoo shop "wasn't appropriate for the location". If singing, dancing, drawing and others are forms of freedom of speech, why wouldn't tattoos be?

3/14/2016
stroudsburg JHS
darrick
Mr.Hanna
What i think is tattoos is a form of protective speech, because the tattoos are like art they express the way you feel and what you believe in. Tattoos are telling the person who is looking at it saying "Hey i believe in god!" what do you believe in? I believe that the city was wrong to tell the couple that their tattoo parlor was "not in the best interest of the neighborhood." And that it is wrong to do that. No one is being forced to get a tattoo they can just pass by and not get one. I think you should be able to write on your body like a painting!

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg JHS
Carlos H.
Mr. Hanna
I think that tattoos are a form of expression. It's a way to show a form of protected speech. People get tattoos to express their emotion or feelings. You may get a tattoo for who you want to be president. I agree with the Arizona Supreme Court. They ruled that tattoos are a form of speech, as everyone else should too. The South Carolina Supreme Court, however were wrong because if someone wants to express themselves by doing what they want to their body, then they should let them. They shouldn't stop them just because it isn't "suitable". If this is how someone chooses to express their thoughts, then there is nothing wrong with it.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Miada E.
Mr. Hanna/ Stroudsburg JHS
I agree that tattoos are a part of the form of protected speech. People get tattoos to symbolize either who they are or what they believe in. We do live in the United States meaning we are in a free country, and since it's the persons body they should be able to do whatever they want with it. The city really didn't have a right to say that the location of where the tattoo parlor was going "not appropriate for the location or in the best interest of the neighborhood." It may have been their city and they wanted to protect their people but what was there to protect from them? That there just so happens to be a tattoo parlor. They shouldn't have to control where people want to put shops. People think tattoos are a way to express themselves, and if they want to put something on their body they shouldn't be told otherwise. People should have the choice to put whatever they wan on their body. As to why I think that tattooing should be protected by the Amendment.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg,PA
Havanah
Mr.Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
I agree with the Supreme Court that tattoos are "feeds of speech." People dye their hair and get tattoos to express their selfs. It honestly is their desision and America is know for being a fee country. It is not our bodies it is the person who is getting it. The city should not have said that to the tattoo parlor and it was the city's opinion and no one cares what they think we are a free country. Their might be consequences to getting a tatto but it is the person who gets it the tatto parlor was not unjust. If we are allowed to have it in other towns I believe that it would be allowed in that city.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg,PAZ
Justin C.
Mr.Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
I believe that tattoos are a expressive thing and symbolize something. People like to get cool designs and words for memory's of someone dead and that's okay because they are expressing themselves. So I think the government should be more lenient with this issue.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg/PA
Saige
Mr Hanna/ SJH
I agree with the Arizona Supreme Court. People get tattoos in memory of people/something or to show what their personality is and that's okay. We live in a free country so there's nothing wrong with them putting ink on themselves for something they really want. It's their bodies, so they should be able to do whatever they want with it. As long as it doesn't hurt/harm anyone, I believe anyone has the right to do whatever they want with themselves.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg JHS
Angelina Truong
Mr. Hanna
In my opinion, I agree with the Arizona Supreme Court. Most people don't get tattoos now a days for "art on their body" but for a purpose of expressing how they feel and how they'll probably feel all their life, since a tattoo is permanent. Some time people do get tattoos for "art on their body" but that "art" is expressing themselves and sometimes it's for a purpose and that is expressing how they feel.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Gigi S.
Mr. Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
I agree with the Arizona Supreme Court, in the sense that tattoos are a protected form of expression. People almost always get tattoos for the sole purpose of expressing who they are or what they believe in. They are free individuals in a free country, and have the right to do what they want to their bodies. I believe that the city was wrong to tell the couple that their tattoo parlor was "not in the best interest of the neighborhood." It would not be hurting anyone just by being there. Nobody would be forced to go in and get a tattoo or even walk by. There is nothing wrong with tattoos and they are just another form of self expression. If they can write it on paper, they should be allowed to write it on their bodies.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg,PA
Arriana
Mr.Hanna\Stroudsburg JHS
I think that tattoos are a form of protected speech. Tattoos can mean anything andis personal to a person. Some people express their self through tattoos no one can tell them to take it off or not to wear it .Tattooing should be protectedmby thefirst Amendment. People use tattoos as a freedom of speech and I do agree with the Arizona Supreme Court.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Sydney
Mr. Hanna/Stroudsburg Junior Highschool
I think the Arizona Supreme Court made the right decision because I think tattoos are meant to be expressive and symbolic to the person getting one. You also can do what you want with your body because it is yours, and not the government's. Besides, the government shouldn't care what we do with our bodies unless it relates to something harmful to the U.S. Maybe not even that.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Ryan P.
Mr. Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
Tattoos are definitely a form of free speech, and should be treated as a protected form of expression. If a person willfully gets a tattoo, he is expressing himself. What other purpose would there be for tattoos? Also, if tattoos wouldn't be considered free speech, why would things like art, music, and movies? I don't particularly enjoy tattoos, but if they are not considered free speech, almost anything can be considered to not fall under free speech.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Willie
Mr. Hanna/ Stroudsburg JHS
Yes the act of tattooing or receiving tattoos are a protected form of expression. It is basically the same thing as art and singing. People sing, draw, and paint as a form of expressing themselves. Expression is the central part of receiving and giving tattoos. One does not simply get a tattoo for the fun of it, they get it to express themselves. And if you don't like tattooing then you wouldn't make a career out of it. Therefore the Arizona Supreme Court made the right decision.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Isabelle .S.
Mr. Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
I agree with the Arizona Supreme Court. The 1st Amendment protects freedom of speech such as a symbol. A tattoo is a symbol you choose to put on your body which I would believe is a type of freedom of speech the the 1st Amendment should protect.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Hannah R.
Mr. Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
I agree with the Arizona Supreme Court that tattoos are a form of free speech and expression. I say this because a person bothered to get a permanent tattoo of something they liked that they would not regret putting on their body. This is a form of self expression which means that it is a form of free speech. I wholeheartedly agree with the Arizona Supreme Court ruling.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Russell
Mr. Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
I feel that it is ok to express your personal interests in ink. Inappropriate artwork is a different story. I feel there should be some limitation and boundaries comparing the argument to the first Amendment. I strongly believe that this freedom can cause impact on the environment and peers. Based on the community having a tattoo can influence the acts of younger children. As long as it is appropriate and not covering the entire body I am in full support!

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Russell
Mr. Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
I feel that it is ok to express your personal interests in ink. Inappropriate artwork is a different story. I feel there should be some limitation and boundaries comparing the argument to the first Amendment. I strongly believe that this freedom can cause impact on the environment and peers. Based on the community having a tattoo can influence the acts of younger children. As long as it is appropriate and not covering the entire body I am in full support!

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg PA
Joe A
Mr.Hanna/stroudsburg JHS
I think tattoos are a former of protected speech it's no different than wearing a shirt that is expressing your thoughts. I also feel it depends on what the tattoo is it shouldn't be a swastika or an ISIS flag but for the most part I feel tattooso are a former of protected speech and should be aloud

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Rory
Mr. Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
I agree with the Arizona justices in saying that tatoos are protected by the first amendment. Some people express themselves through tatoos and if they cannot be forced not to have it because restricting tatoos would be violating the first amendment. I believe that the Coleman's should have strongly disagreed with the ruling like they did.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Chase
Mr. Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
I believe that tattooing is a part of free speech and that it should be allowed everywhere. If the tattoo is religious or just for decorating and expressing who you are, there is no reason to deny the people of their rights. If you want to make your body unique, then that should be your decision and not the decision of the government. Now.... I know court can make fair points to tattooing profanity on one's self, but still, it is expressing yourself and thus free speech.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Hannah S
Mr.Hanna:Stroudsburg JHS
Yes, I believe tattoos are a form of protected speech. Many people who have tattoos have them to express themselves, their beliefs and overall who they are as a person. The government trying to take away someone's right to give others tattoos when they have a licence is wrong, as it violates the first amendment. Tattoos at show many express themselves.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Salome
Mr.Hanna/stroudsburg JHS
I think tattooing and the act of tattooing isn't a protected form of expression, because some states aren't letting people open tattoot shops, and some business owners argue that as denying freedom of speech. Expression is a big part of central act of component tattooing, because you just don't get a tatto out of no where you have to be inspired on getting it and it has to represent something to you, but I don't think it matters what you think when you're facing the suprem court. The Arizona Supreme Court didn't make the right decision they sided with the South Carolina court. In my opinion I think that the Arizona court should have favored the young tattors in opening there parlor, because there not doing anything wrong there just tattooing expressions on people.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg,PA
Lauryn
Mr.Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
I believe that tattoos are a protected expression if they are little and not standing out like on your arm or somewhere were everybody can see it. I think that the act of tattooing is a big part in action because getting a tattoo can get so out of hand therefore if you want a little message or picture that is representing someone or something important to you that is not a big deal but when you are putting many tattoos all around your body you are not protecting your expression. I am leaning towards the South Carolina because they are right injecting ink into your skin is not protecting your expression because it can be so big and everybody is going to see it and it's not protecting your expression if many people wherever you go can see the tattoo. Also Arizona is correct if it's a message or picture that is important and little then it's protecting it because not everybody can see it.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg,Pa
Derek
Mr.Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
Yes, I believe that tattos or the act of tattooing is a protected form of expression because I believe feelings of thoughts can be expressed thru tattoos.I feel it is a small part.yes I feel they made the right decision.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Mahogany
Mr.Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
I think that tattoos are an act of expression, because its people expresses themselves on their own body. Expressing yourself is a big part of getting a tattoo, some people get tattoos for loved ones who passed, or a symbol that means something to them. I believe that the Arizona Supreme Court made the right decision because I think getting a tattoo is a freedom of speech .

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Brian
Mr.Hana/ stroudsburg JHS
Yea it is because like they denied to take it to court when they wanted to and there was certain rights in the constitution. It is small Part of action and they did not make the right decision cause they had a good reason and they still turned it down

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg PA
Dj
Mr.Hanna Stroudsburg JHS
I believe that they should let people get a tattoo of ay thing they want because 1 people have been doing this for years now without having a lot of bad things happening not bad enough to make it to the news so I believe Americans should keep doing what their doing and get whatever they want on their own body and also it's YOUR body the government ment doesn't own your body you can do anything you want to yourself it's your choice

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg,PA
Daniella
Mr.Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
I think that people should be able to get or have tattoos if they wanted to. It's about freedom and being able to do what you want.Its only a small part of the action I side with the Arizona Supreme Court

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg,PA
Laif
Mr.Hana\stroudsburg
Tattooing is indeed a form of expretion. It could show your religion, your family, friends, groups that you belong in and so much more. Tattooing wouldn't be as popular if expretion had nothing to do with it. You write on yourself to exprese your love for people or things, and sometime sadness, hatred, and happeness. Arizona made the right decision but that shouldn't of been there decision in the first place. It is entirely the shop owners decision to have a tattoo parlor.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg,PA
Laif
Mr.Hana\stroudsburg
Tattooing is indeed a form of expretion. It could show your religion, your family, friends, groups that you belong in and so much more. Tattooing wouldn't be as popular if expretion had nothing to do with it. You write on yourself to exprese your love for people or things, and sometime sadness, hatred, and happeness. Arizona made the right decision but that shouldn't of been there decision in the first place. It is entirely the shop owners decision to have a tattoo parlor.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg,PA
Wayne
Mr.Hanna/stroudsburg JHS
Tattoos or the act of tattooing is not protecting form of expression. I feel that tattoos are just a style for people not expression. Tattoos are bad in many ways, some people get inappropriate things inked on there body which is permanent and basically hurting your skin. Tattoos can also show a business your appearance if u try to get a job, they can think bad of u. I think tattoos are not bad I just feel that it depends on what u tattoo u get on your body.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Sabrina
Mr. Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
I believe that tattoos are a form of protected speech and expression. Tattoos show a wide range of expression in anyone. You wouldn't just get a permanent mark on your skin of just anything! In a way, the Supreme court system has the right to deny land, but never tattoos itself. If its YOUR body you should be allowed to put anything you want on it! So yes, I truly believe tattoos are a form of protected speech and should not be out ruled.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg/ Pennsylvania
Madison
Mr. Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
Tattoos are a form of protected speech. Any one has the right to ink their own body in a safe way because it is their body and they can do what they want with it. Tattoos don't make a person any different than they would be if they didn't have tattoos. They walk the same, talk the same, have the same personality and they look the same. They just have some ink on their skin for their own liking. Tattooing is a small party of the central component.I side with the Arizona Supreme Court.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Umu
Mr. Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
Tattoos are the act of a protected form of expression. By nature, expression is a merely small part of action. The Arizona Supreme Court made the right decision by saying it's a form of free speech.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Dallas
Mr. Hannah/Stroudsburg JHS
Tattoos may not be protected but they are a form of expressions. A lot of people us them to express themselves. It is a small part of the action because it says that it is the first amendment. I think that Arizona Supreme Court made the right decision because they said it's a form of expression and I agree with that.

3/9/2016
Phoenix, AZ
Michael Quinn
Mr. Quinn / Cornerstone Charter School
We did some further research in the case because we realized that city zoning ordinances were probably at work in the case. The reason the denial was issued by the City of Mesa town council was because of 'activist' neighbors who put pressure on them to turn down the permit to open the business due to the plaintiff's Neo-Nazi and criminal background... So my students continue to discover that, as always, court cases are very complicated.

3/7/2016
Plymouth, Wisconsin
Christiana
Mrs. Biller/PHS
I agree with the Arizona Supreme Court ruling, the 1st amendment protects some forms of expression such as symbols and actions. Getting a tattoo is an action, and the actual tattoo is a symbol of what you believe.

3/7/2016
Plymouth/Wisconsin
Max Hassel
Biller/Plymouth High School
Yes, every opinion and choice you make will end up expressing who you are and if they choose to inject in into the dermis of their skin, if speaks out about them. These types of choices are protected by the 1st amendment, freedom of speech.

3/7/2016
Plymouth, WI
Brodie Kroon
Biller/PHS
Tattooing is a form of expression because it show what the person likes. So I think that South Carolina's Supreme Court made the right decision.

3/3/2016
Plymouth, WI
Matt
Plymouth High School
There is a limit to everything. I am a firm believer in this. And the same applies when talking about a tattoo. You see, people try to bend and push laws and rules, because it is how we are. I feel that if the tattoo is appropriate and has no relation to a gang or a dangerous group, it is perfectly acceptable. However, if it does show some sort of inappropriate picture, or is related to a gang or criminal group, it should be outlawed. I feel, overall, if it is not violating anyone's rights (putting them in danger), people should be able to put on as many tattoos as they would like. But if it is hurting someone or something, it should NOT be protected.

3/3/2016
plymouth/wi
Anthoy
mrs biller/Phs
I think it should be allowed because all they are doing is expressing their speech or religion in art form. Also its not hurting anybody else, unless the tattoo represent some kind of gang then I wont agree. So it really depends how people take the tattoo seriously.

3/3/2016
Murrieta
Marco
Mr Jabro Creekside highschool
i feel like as long as the tattoo means something to the person who got it thats all that should matter people are tatted head to toe but the tattoos mean something to them and some people think tattoos are a sign of evil which i think is wrong some tattoos have alot of meaning to them

3/3/2016
California murrieta
cameron
mr.jabro murrieta creekside high school
I think tattoos are a very expressive type of thing, some people get a tattoo that actually means something to them, it can be anything as long as that person loves it and it has meaning to it that speaks its self, a picture can show alot about a person,it may be hard to actually figure out the message but it ends up making sense to those who understand what the message in the ink is.

3/3/2016
plymouth/wi
Anthoy
mrs biller/Phs
I think it should be allowed because all they are doing is expressing their speech or religion in art form. Also its not hurting anybody else, unless the tattoo represent some kind of gang then I wont agree. So it really depends how people take the tattoo seriously.

3/3/2016
CA
isaac
jabro creekside
any type of tattoo should be able to be chosen by the person. although someone applying for a job should understand that the tattoos should be covered or a certain length to show the business can be professional. no one should be able to get in trouble for what the tattoo says or shows

3/3/2016
plymouth/wi
Anthoy
mrs biller/Phs
I think it should be allowed because all they are doing is expressing their speech or religion in art form. Also its not hurting anybody else, unless the tattoo represent some kind of gang then I wont agree. So it really depends how people take the tattoo seriously.

3/3/2016
Plymouth Wi
Adam
Riverview
The tattoo parlor should be permitted because it is a freedom of speech. If it's distracting to have one oh well because then you'd have to start limiting other options such as dress codes becoming more strict. These could also be decorative to mean something else instead of what you think they could mean.

3/3/2016
Plymouth Wisconsin
Stefan A.
Mrs. Biller/ Plymouth High School
Tattoos, along with hairstyles, clothes, and other bodily markings are a form of expression. Yes, I believe that they should be protected under the 1st ammendment, since they are basically a visual form of what a person says. However, allowing a shop to open that gives tattoos is another issue. This has more to do with influence and zoning. Its like in the suburb of Pheonix, Scottsdale, where buildings cannot have flashy signs. The city is not trying to limit your rights, simply keep the city clean. I believe it is within the full rights of the city to decide whether or not a certain establishment is built.

3/3/2016
Plymouth/WI
Will Birkholz
Biller/PHS
I think having tattoos are a form of protected speech because they are purely for expression, you can do what you what with your body.

3/3/2016
Plymouth/Wisconsin
Lily Jirikowic
Biller/PHS
If you do end up getting one or more tattoos, they become part of your body. It is a form of expression that shouldn't be taken away from anyone. Tattoos are art and is you take that away from people, its inhuman and should be protected. I think it would be offensive if you tell someone that they shouldn't have tattoos. It would be like telling someone they should change their hair.

3/3/2016
Plymouth, Wisconsin
Christiana
Mrs. Biller/PHS
I agree with the Arizona Supreme Court ruling, the 1st amendment protects some forms of expression such as symbols and actions. Getting a tattoo is an action, and the actual tattoo is a symbol of what you believe.

3/3/2016
Plymouth, WI
Hannah
Mrs. Biller/ PHS
I think that tattoos should be protected because they are a form of expression. People typically get a tattoo that has meaning to them. It's their own body and they have the right to do what they want to it.

3/3/2016
Plymouth, WI
Josh H.
Mrs. Biller
Tattoos allow people to express themselves by making a statement with their tattoos. Whatever tattoo that they are getting lets others know what that person is trying to say.

3/3/2016
Plymouth, Wisconsin
Maggie S.
Mrs. Biller/ Plymouth High School
Tattoos are a form of free speech. Tattoos are just ways that people express themselves. People have the right to do what they want with their bodies and most tattoos that people get have meaning. Whether it is for decoration or for something they believe in, the people have the right to get a tattoo in a form of expression.

3/3/2016
Plymouth, WI
Hannah
Mrs. Biller/ PHS
I think that tattoos should be protected because they are a form of expression. People typically get a tattoo that has meaning to them. It's their own body and they have the right to do what they want to it.

3/3/2016
Plymouth, WI
Gabby Arnold
Biller
I believe that the act of tattooing should be protected by the first amendment. As stated in the article, tattoos can have words or symbols that express you and your feelings. This is your body and you deserve to do with it as you please.

3/3/2016
Plymouth, Wisconsin
Dawson Smith
Mrs Biller Plymouth high school
Tattoos are a way of expressing and it is protected speech because the tattoos pose no danger. You get to pick the tattoo and where you want it. it should be protected because there is no real threat or danger.

3/3/2016
Plymouth, Wisconsin
Joe
Mrs. Biller/ Plymouth High School
I think that having tattoos is a protected form of expression. Expression is a central component of tattooing because people get tattoos to show others what they believe is right for any topic such as religion and politics. I sided with the Arizona Supreme Court because everybody has the right to express themselves as long as it doesn't violate to rights of others. As long as it isn't something like a KKK symbol and swastika that presents a clear threat then it should be fine.

3/3/2016
plymouth/wi
Anthoy
mrs biller/Phs
I think it should be allowed because all they are doing is expressing their speech or religion in art form. Also its not hurting anybody else, unless the tattoo represent some kind of gang then I wont agree. So it really depends how people take the tattoo seriously.

3/3/2016
Plymouth Wi
Adam
Riverview
The tattoo parlor should be permitted because it is a freedom of speech. If it's distracting to have one oh well because then you'd have to start limiting other options such as dress codes becoming more strict. These could also be decorative to mean something else instead of what you think they could mean.

3/3/2016
wisconsin
Paige Ashworth
Mrs. Biller PHS
Yes the act of tattooing is protected because its an individual making a decision to modify their own body its not like people are making people go get tattoos they are doing it on their free will. I think for most it is just a form of expression but if it was more than that to someone they would just get tattooed illegally anyway. Yes Arizona made the right decision people should be allowed to express themselves in any way they want with tattoos. If you are allowed to say something that offends people why shouldn't you be allowed to put it on your body.

3/3/2016
Plymouth, Wisconsin
Dawson Smith
Mrs Biller Plymouth high school
Tattoos are a way of expressing and it is protected speech because the tattoos pose no danger. You get to pick the tattoo and where you want it. it should be protected because there is no real threat or danger.

3/3/2016
Plymouth , Wisconsin
Anna
Mrs. Biller/ Plymouth High School
Tattoos are a form of expression that should protected by the First Amendment as long as they don't violate another person's rights. Tattoos don't hurt anyone else. I side with the Arizona Supreme Court because these people where just helping others express themselves in a way that wasn't harmful to others.

3/3/2016
Plymouth Wi
Adam
Riverview
The tattoo parlor should be permitted because it is a freedom of speech. If it's distracting to have one oh well because then you'd have to start limiting other options such as dress codes becoming more strict. These could also be decorative to mean something else instead of what you think they could mean.

3/3/2016
plymouth/wi
Anthoy
mrs biller/Phs
I think it should be allowed because all they are doing is expressing their speech or religion in art form. Also its not hurting anybody else, unless the tattoo represent some kind of gang then I wont agree. So it really depends how people take the tattoo seriously.

3/3/2016
Plymouth Wi
Adam
Riverview
The tattoo parlor should be permitted because it is a freedom of speech. If it's distracting to have one oh well because then you'd have to start limiting other options such as dress codes becoming more strict. These could also be decorative to mean something else instead of what you think they could mean.

3/3/2016
Plymouth, WI
Parker Z.
Mrs. Biller / Plymouth High School
Yes, tattoos are protected speech. You choose the "words" they say. People could interpret them incorrectly, but the person with the tattoo shouldn't be criticized. Their body, their choice. It could be for a loved one, lost friend, military, or personal reasons. Tattoos are protected speech.

3/3/2016
Plymouth, WI
Brady
Mrs. Biller/Plymouth High School
Tattoos are a form of protected speech because they could be used for religious, political, or social purposes. Also, it is your body, and you have the right to put tattoos on it, and the Bill of Rights states, “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech…”

3/3/2016
Plymouth, WI
Charlotte
Mrs. Biller/Plymouth High School
People are allowed to express themselves however they want; it says so in the First Amendment. Whether it is dying their hair purple or covering their bodies with outrageous tattoos, it is considered protected speech. Although it may be distracting in a learning environment, schools have to allow it.

3/3/2016
Plymouth. WI
Keeley
Mrs. Biller/Plymouth High School
Tattoos are a form of free speech and expression; therefore, they are protected by way of the First Amendment of the United States of America. Tattoos do not cause harm to any other person and are "purely expressive activity." People should be allowed to express themselves in any way they see fitting. ?

3/3/2016
Plymouth, WI
Amanda
Mrs. Biller / Plymouth High School
Tattoos are a form of protected speech. They are a way for people to express themselves. As long as you're not causing a clear and present danger to the situation that you're in, it is protected.

3/3/2016
plymouth, wisconsin
Jordain
Mrs.biller phs
I believe that they are acceptable because they are just expressing how they feel. They are just like any eat piercing except maybe more noticeable. They are just being themselves in school and schools should allow they to dress how they want as long as it does not reveal to much "skin". Also they could have a tattoo anywhere else like their arm and teachers would think that it was totally fine and normal, but when its their face it would be bad. Let the kids express themselves any way they want as long as it doesn't have a bad outcome.

3/2/2016
Sidney, MT
Kaitlyn T.
Mr. Faulhaber/ Sidney High School
Tattoos are a form of expression which makes it protected speech by way of the First Amendment. It is your body, you have the right to do with it what you want. When one gets a tattoo, you decide what you want the tattoo to be. Therefore, it is considered speech because it depicts what you want it to say. The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...". Tattoos are protected speech.

3/2/2016
Sidney/ MT
Chris
Mr. Faulhaber/ Sidney High School
I know that tattoos are a form of art. The way one can express everything and anything want to. It can show what the believe in and what the love. A persons body is a blank canvas to what he or she wants to create and show the world. I think that it should be supported under the 1st Amendment and there shouldn't have to be an arguement about it. This is what I think about the situation.

3/2/2016
Sidney/MT
Nick
Mr.Faulhaber
Yes, Tattoos are a way of expressing ones self. Most people that have tattoos will say it is and most people without tattoos will say no its not. I have a tattoo that i got because my dad passed away and its a way to express myself. Other people do the same thing, yes some tattoos may be offensive to other people but its something your going to have to get over being offended is something you have to live with in the U.S. because not everything someone does, says, wears, or shows off will be up to your expectations. We dont live in YOUR world or YOUR country its OUR country and everyone has the right to express themselves freely without being put down by the government or their own people.

3/2/2016
Sidney/ MT
Lucas
Mr. Faulhaber/ Sidney High School
Yes tattoos are a form of protected speech. Humans are free to tattoo whatever they wish upon themselves and are protected under the first amendment to do so.

2/11/2016
West Nyack/ NY
Sierra
Mr. Barsamian/ Clarkstown High School South
Tattoos are a way of expressing one self and everyone has the right to do so. Expressing one self is protected in the First Amendment free speech right in the U.S. Constitution. Receiving a tattoo is totally up to the individual who wants one. It is their own body and they as a Citizen of the United States and as a human being have every right to decided whether or not they get a tattoo. No one has the right to tell you what you can and can't do to you own body, it's entirely up to the person their self. I think that the Arizona court was right because I believe in freedom of expression. The city was wrong denying them the permit. The Arizona constitution even has a free-speech provision. No one can force you to get one either, therefore the city's argument doesn't even hold that much gravity. Tattoo are art on a unconventional/ unique canvas.

2/11/2016
New City/New York
Christopher
Mr. Barsamian Clarkstown High School South
Yes, I do think that tattoos are a form of expression and that the right to tattoo should be protected. I think expression is a big role in the act of tattooing. One usually gets a tattoo of something meaningful to them or something that they believe in. I think that the Arizona Supreme Court made the right decision. Expression plays a big role in the first amendment and should be able to be carried out freely.

2/11/2016
New City/NY
Katie
Mr. B/Clarkstown South
I feel tattoos are a form of expression and it should be protected by the first amendment. I also think what people want to do and put on their bodies is their decision and should not be controlled by the government. I feel tattoos are definitely a form of free speech.

2/11/2016
New City/New York
Christopher
Mr. Barsamian Clarkstown High School South
Yes, I do think that tattoos are a form of expression and that the right to tattoo should be protected. I think expression is a big role in the act of tattooing. One usually gets a tattoo of something meaningful to them or something that they believe in. I think that the Arizona Supreme Court made the right decision. Expression plays a big role in the first amendment and should be able to be carried out freely.

2/11/2016
West Nyack/NY
Julianna
Mr. Barsamian/Clarkstown High School South
Tattoos are a type of freedom of expression. One should be able to express themselves it is merely the reason for tattoos and should be protected by the first amendment. I believe the Arizona court made the right decision because what people decide to put on to their bodies should be controlled by themselves not our government. Tattoo is art, no one should be given a limit on what they can do to express themselves.

2/11/2016
West Nyack/NY
Alec
Mr. Barsamian/ Clarkstown High School South
Tattoos are a form of expression and it should be protected. I totally agree with Arizona's decision to allow the couple to make the tattoo parlor because The 1st amendment is one of the most important right that we citizens have. Tattoos are a expression because some people who have served in our military have gotten something like a tattoo to show their dedication and appreciation for the branch and the platoon that they have served in and with. So that is why I believe it should be protected under the 1st amendment.

2/11/2016
New City/NY
David Varughese
Mr. B/South
I believe that people have the right to have tattoos because it is a protected form of expression. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law...abridging of speech..."So anything that goes against the First Amendment is wrong. I believe the Supreme Courts decision was correct.

2/11/2016
New City
Daniel
Mr B/ South
Any human has the right do with his own body as he or she pleases. However a town can make zoning laws outlawing pubs. If they are allowed to ban pubs then by the same logic they should be allowed to ban tattoo businesses from setting up in their town. Any U.S citizen can simply go to the next town over and get a tattoo. It does not stop you from getting a tattoo therefore your first amendment right is not infringed upon.

2/11/2016
New City/NY
David Varughese
Mr. B/I beliSouth
I believe that people have the right to have tattoos because it is a protected form of expression. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law...abridging of speech..."So anything that goes against the First Amendment is wrong. I believe the Supreme Courts decision was correct.

2/11/2016
New City/NY
David Varughese
Mr. B/South
I believe that people have the right to have tattoos because it is a protected form of expression. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law...abridging of speech..."So anything that goes against the First Amendment is wrong. I believe the Supreme Courts decision was correct

2/11/2016
West Nyack/NY
Carly
Mr. Barsamian/Clarkstown South High School
I think tattoos are a form of protected speech and it shouldn't matter what someone chooses to put on their body. Whether it's a tattoo, shirt, hair color or style its a way of expressing who you are and no one should be taking that away. People are always going to talk and have something to say about anything and everything and it shouldn't stop people from expressing who they are. I agree with the court rule because if it's said aloud or inked onto someone's body, it is still free speech and no one has the right to tell someone what they can or can't do with their bodies or how they choose to present themselves.

2/11/2016
West Nyack/NY
Christine
Mr. B/Clarkstown South
Tattoos and tattooing should be protected under the freedom of expression. Tattooing is a form of expression in which a person is allowed to express themselves on his/her own personal body, and the government should not tend to control what people do to their bodies. I believe the Arizona Supreme Court clearly made the right decision, the court seems to understand the meanings and concept of the first amendment.

2/11/2016
New City
Daniel
Mr B/ South
Any human has the right do with his own body as he or she pleases. However a town can make zoning laws outlawing pubs. If they are allowed to ban pubs then by the same logic they should be allowed to ban tattoo businesses from setting up in their town. Any U.S citizen can simply go to the next town over and get a tattoo. It does not stop you from getting a tattoo therefore your first amendment right is not infringed upon.

2/11/2016
West Nyack, NY
Kathryn
Mr. B
The government of one town cannot speak for the values of every citizen, and unless the tattoo parlor was going to be in a very child-oriented part of town, there is no reason for the city to say it was "not appropriate for the location or in the best interest of the neighborhood". It is free speech, but deciding the placement and the construction of the parlor is unfit without consulting the citizens who would be effected by it is an abuse of power and a reflection of personal values held by city officials.

2/11/2016
West Nyack, New York
Jaime
Mr. Barsamian
Tattoos are a form of art and free speech. People should be allowed to express themselves the way they want to. I could see why it could be a little strange to have a tattoo parlor in a business district, however tattooing is a business too and should be allowed. People now are too sensitive and care too much about little insignificant things like a tattoo.

2/11/2016
West Nyack,NY
Caitlin
Mr. B
Tattoos are a way to express yourself and should be protected by the First Amendment. Tattoo parlors should not be seen as negative because it is a way a person can express themselves without it being a distraction to other people. It should not be shut down or not be allowed in a certain area because it is "not appropriate for the location." If a person can pay to open a shop they should be allowed to open it no matter what area because it should be protected fully by the First Amendment.

2/11/2016
West Nyack, NY
Eve
Mr. Barsamian
I feel that getting a tattoo is a form of free speech and expression, however, setting up a tattoo parlor is not. If someone wants to open up a tattoo parlor, like the Colemans, it should be in a place that would not disturb the best interests of the neighborhood. If it's in an area with schools or businesses, then there shouldn't be a tattoo parlor. I believe that all people should be allowed to get tattoos, but they can't be done just anywhere.

2/11/2016
West Nyack/NY
Sophie
Mr. Barsamian/Clarkstown High School South
Tattoos are a form of expression and one should be able to have that protected. I think the Arizona court made the right decision because I believe in the freedom of expression. People will always be offended by something honestly, and that is something that will never change. What others choose do with their body should not be up to the government or the people surrounding them. Whether it's choosing what tattoo to get or anything else revolving around one's body should be up to them.

2/11/2016
New York
Natalie
Mr.B
Tattoos are used to express an individual and should be seen as a form of freedom of speech. The Arizona court in my opinion was wrong and violated the first amendment. Tattoos are a protected form of speech and shouldn't be seen as something drastic or deemed "inappropriate." They are a common thing and wanting to place a tattoo parlor somewhere shouldn't be an issue.

2/11/2016
West Nyack/ NY
Sarah Brennan
Mr. Barsamian/ Clarkstown High School South
Tattoos are a form of free speech. First of all, the constitution says so and only certain amendments can be banned but that's only in time of war or terror. The United States isn't going through a time of war at the moment. Tattoos are a way people can express something that means a lot to them. Although sometimes people do stupid things and get tattoos that don't mean anything to them but they're still allowed to do that.

2/11/2016
West Nyack/ NY
Nicole
Mr. Barsamian/ Clarkstown High School South
Tattoos are a form of expression and expressing yourself is what makes up the first amendment. I believe that the city had no right to tell them that they could not open up their shop as long as they followed all regulations that all other businesses follow. Tattoos are common and are a form of speech therefore opening a tattoo parlor in an available area should not be denied and neither should what you choose to put on your own body.

2/11/2016
West Nyack
Greg and Matt
Mr.B
I believe that Arizona is right in this situation. Tattoos express a persons opinions feeling and beliefs openly enough to put it on their body for the rest of their lives. No one should be able to tell them they need to cover it up or stop a local establishment for coming into an area.;

2/11/2016
West Nyack/NY
Sophie
Mr. Barsamian/Clarkstown High School South
Tattoos are a form of expression and one should be able to have that protected. I think the Arizona court made the right decision because I believe in the freedom of expression. People will always be offended by something honestly, and that is something that will never change. What others choose do with their body should not be up to the government or the people surrounding them. Whether it's choosing what tattoo to get or anything else revolving around one's body should be up to them.

2/8/2016
Murrieta
Killian
Mr. Jabro
Tattoos are a very common things to get and just cause some city doesn't want you to open a shop a on a corner where you want to station yourself and run your business why should your local city government be able to dictate that? The answer is that they should not and should go do something important like fixing your water problem or Deciding how to integrate refugees from your Syria into your society.

2/8/2016
Murrieta, CA
Kameo
Mr. Jabro/CreekSide
I believe that tattoos are forms of expression, and should be protected by the first amendment. They are forms of art work that people decide to put on their bodies. Some tattoos shouldn't ever have vulgar meanings or symbols, but it is the persons right to have what they want. The Arizona court made the right decision.

2/3/2016
Sheridan Wyoming
Tyler
SHS
Tattoos are your own doing say stuff like what the Neo Nazi say a lot of bad stuff but hey are still protected by the first amendment so what the difference when you put what you think visibly on your body so i believe that what South Carolina was not right and unconstitutional.

2/2/2016
Murrieta/Californa
Daniel
Mr.Jabro/CreekSide
I think tattoos should be protected, people art work in museums and galleries are protected. Tattoos are just art work on people. If people express themselves on paper, then people who express themselves on their own bodies should also. If they didn't want people to acknowledge and appriciate the tattoo then they wouldn't have gotten it. Just because they have tattoos it doesn't make them any different than anyone else they're still people, and their art work on their body is still beautiful.

1/28/2016
Murrieta/Ca
Kayla
Jabro/Creekside
I think that tattoos are a form of expression. Not many individuals get harmful tattoos such as a swastika. I have a tattoo and I believe it's my right to have it and I got it at the legal age of 18. I don't understand why the city stated that the shop wasn't right for the area? Some of the most Christian, conservative people have tattoos for whatever reason they want. Tattoos are harmless and people have the right to cover their body in them, because it's artwork.

1/28/2016
Williamsville, IL
Carson
Compardo/WJHS
I believe that tattoos are a form of free speech. Tattoos are a form of art and opinions. Artists are free to paint, draw, and display what they feel. With tattoos, there is just a different canvas. Many people get tattoos to have a religious reminder, or a quote, or a symbol to remember something. If the tattoo is going to say something, it's up to the customer to decide what they want it to say. Much similarly, any person can say what they'd like since there is freedom of speech. No, not everyone may like it, but it's their choice and it's protected.

1/27/2016
CA
David
Mr Jaboro
I believe tattoos are a form of expression, therefore should be protetcted under the first admendment. However, just because America has freedom of speech does not mean that you can run into an airport and scream bomb! I think any art on someones body that is pornografic, profane, or innapropriate should be covered.

1/14/2016
Irving TX
Rolando
Mrs Bradley Nimitz
Tattoos are protected in the Constitution it's essential for the fact that it's a right for people to write on their bodies. Their opinion is a form of expression as well as a form of art. So it's right to express how we feel, it was right to protect from Arizona so that federal government has the power.

1/14/2016
Irving/TX
Nicole
Bradley/Nimitz
Tattoos are a form of freedom of speech because they can represent one's opinion while still following the law. It's known as a form of symbolic speech in my eyes because the person is using themselves as the object to view their thoughts. As well as that, it's a form of expression through artwork that anyone has the right to do. Of course, the things you choose to write would be preferred not to be slander, but it's still your choice of what to say and what to do with your body.

1/14/2016
Irving/Texas
Jubilee
Bradley/Nimitz
Yes, the act of tattooing is a protected form of expression because it is a way to get you word out for the person with the tattoo and the one giving the tattoo.in may cases a tattoo will has a deep meaning and to other it can tell their story and beliefs within a quick glance. Arizona supreme court made the right decision in the case Anderson v. City because it is a form of speech.

1/14/2016
Ca
Kevin
Mr. Jabro
I believe that tattoos are a protected speech of the first amendment. The first amendment guarantees the right to freedom of expression. Tattooing something on yourself is part of the expressive conduct. The expressive conduct is a nonverbal speech that intends to communicate a message. I think the Arizona Supreme Court made the right decision by saying that tattoos are a form of free speech.

1/14/2016
murrieta, CA
Casey H.
Mr.Jabro
Tattoos and Tattooing is a form of expression just like speaking out or any kind of art but this is permenatly on your skin. I wouldn't say that expression is the central component but its not just a little part of it, expression is widely used in Tattoos. Well at first i didn't like what Arizona was saying, denying a Tattoo Parlor because it may offend people? Is someone going to deny a church to be built because that religion offends them. They could but it would be the stupidest action made! Tattoos all the waaaaay!

1/14/2016
Ca
Kevin
Mr. Jabro
I believe that tattoos are a protected speech of the first amendment. The first amendment guarantees the right to freedom of expression. Tattooing something on yourself is part of the expressive conduct. The expressive conduct is a nonverbal speech that intends to communicate a message. I think the Arizona Supreme Court made the right decision by saying that tattoos are a form of free speech.

1/14/2016
Irving/Texas
Aron
Bradley/Nimitz
Tattoos, like other art forms, are methods of self expression and should be protected under the first amendment. The only difference between tattoos and art in a gallery or words in the book are that these words and images are imprinted in a person's skin. The courts have, for the most part protected the individual's right to do what they want with their body, such as abortion, and should continue by protecting the speech found in tattoos.

1/12/2016
Irving/Texas
Ryan
Bradley/Nimitz
Yes, tattoos are protected under the Constitution as free speech. Used to express personality as well as political and religious beliefs, tattoos are just as much free speech as hair color or literature, and even within schools should fall under free speech protection. Tattooing is an art from that has existed since early civilizations and shows no signs of slowing down, and is simply one of the many mediums through which individuals can express themselves and their beliefs.

1/12/2016
Murrieta/California
McKenzie
Jabro/Creekside High school
I believe that Tattoos are a form of protected speech. Tattoos give people the chance to express themselves protected by the first amendment. Tattoos are not always just for the fashion it can also be for a sentimental reason and shouldn't be a concern to anyone else but that person.

1/12/2016
Irving/TX
Caroline
Bradley/Nimitz
Tattoos are a form of protected speech. Artwork is created on the body once ink is permanently injected into the skin. Like all types of art, tattoos should be considered a form of protected speech. Tattoos to different people have different meanings, but regardless of the how much their importances differ, tattoos are methods of expression that should be considered as protected speech. In the case of Coleman v. City of Mesa, the Supreme Court of Arizona based their ruling on the ruling of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Anderson v. City of Hermosa Beach. In that case, the justices decided that the process of tattooing, and the business of tattooing are “forms of pure expression fully protected by the First Amendment.” I agree with this ruling. Tattoos are forms of pure expression, and they should be protected fully by the First Amendment. Because they based its decision on the ruling of the Anderson v. City of Hermosa Beach, I believe that the Arizona Supreme Court made the right decision.

1/6/2016
St.clair/Missouri
Charles Knipp
Mr.Haddox/St.clair high school
yes

12/17/2015
Irving/Texas
Gabriela
Bradley/Nimitz
Yes, tattoos are a form of protected speech, tattoos are a way of a person expressing themselves. For example, Tinker v. Des Moines, they were able to show their support for a truce during the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands. If the black armbands were tattoos, it would of have been ruled the same. We have freedom of speech and protected form of expression, and that is protected by the First Amendment. The Arizona court made the right decision, my reason for that is because tattooing is a way of expressing yourself, either by words or by art.

12/15/2015
Murrieta/California
Joshua Garcia
Jabro/Creekide High School
The act of tattooing is a protected form of expression just as the "First Amendment" implies. Although it is protected it is completely unnatural. I believe that the Arizona Supreme Court made the right decision on protecting the art of tattooing.

12/11/2015
Murrieta/ CA
Maria
Menera
I believe tattoos are a form of free speech because free speech doesn't necessarily have to be using your words or writing on a piece of paper. Freedom of speech is defined as the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint. Tattoos or the art of tattooing are "forms of pure expression fully protected by the first amendment." Therefore no matter what the tattoo is or symbolizes a person with tattoos or a person owning a tattoo parlor has the freedom of speech to create art.

12/11/2015
Diamond Bar, California
Victoria P1
Wong/ Lorbeer Middle School
In my opinion I believe the Arizona Supreme Court made the right decision. I regard both the act of tattooing and tattoo a protected form of speech. I believe this beause in the First Amendment it clearly states " Congress shall make no law.....abridging the freedom of speech or of the press...."Another reason I support tattoos is because tattoos can be a symbol of art, religion, and they may have words expressing the person's thoughts.

12/11/2015
Diamond Bar, CA
JonathanP5
Wong/Lorbeer
Tattoos are an example of free speech. Tattoos can be images or symbols or even just words that that shows and expresses the person that they're tattooed on, therefore in itself is self expression which is protected by the First Amendment. I have sided with the Arizona Supreme Court and feel that they have made the right decision.

12/11/2015
Diamond Bar/CA
AndrewP4
Wong/Lorbeer
Tattoos or the act of tattooing is protected speech because they may be a religious symbol, art, or have words. All of these may hold a great meaning to those whom display them. Some people may have a tattoo of deceased loved one's picture or name. Others may have a cross on their skin which stands for their faith. In the case Anderson v. City of Hermosa Beach, there is a reference to the First Amendment by the U.S. Supreme Court.“Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech…” as stated in the U.S. Constitution. The Arizona Court ruled in favor of Anderson and stated tattoos are “forms of pure expression fully protected by the First Amendment", this allowed him to open a tattoo parlor. Therefore, tattoos are a form of protected speech.

12/11/2015
Diamond Bar, CA
AllyP4
Wong/Lorbeer
I believe that tattoos are a form of free speech because it could have a stronger meaning then just words. I know some people who have memorial tattoo for their parents and people who are close to them. I also believe that people can damage their skin however they would like. As a matter of fact, in the constitution it quotes "Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech…" An action speaks leader than words I always say. This action of permanent ink could speak millions of words to them.

12/11/2015
Diamond Bar, CA
Emily T
Wong/Lorbeer
Tattoos are a form of free speech since free speech doesn't have to be using words or writing free speech is something that express an opinion or make a statement whether it's a shirt or a bracelet which includes tattoos. Tattoos can have meanings that you might not see at first like they could show love to a deceased family member or to show respect to the army. Tattoos consist of many different images from a simple shape to a shaded face. The first amendment clearly protects all forms of free speech then tattoos should be included in those protected items. Sure tattoos may seem unnecessary and just body decorations that aren't professional but it's adults who usually will say it's not a form of free speech and they forget that they were just like us. That is why tattoos should be a protected speech.

12/10/2015
Dimand Bar/CA
AndyP5
Wong/Lorbeer
I believe tattoos are a form of protected speech because they have a form of self expression of a person. The reason why tattoos are a form of self expression is because it can relate to something that is meaning to people even if its a just a picture, its also a form of art. Tattoos can be meaningful maybe about a love one or a family member who past or an inspirational quote it still is a form of self expression. So the Arizona Supreme Court made an excellent decision because the First Amendment did make protect freedom of speech and quotes "Congress shall make no law.... abridging the freedom of speech...." Tattoos are self expression and should never be taken away.

12/10/2015
Diamond Bar, CA
KaiP1
Wong/Lorbeer
I believe that the Arizona Supreme Court made the right decision because they ruled that tattoos,"may be purely decorative or serve religious, political, or social purposes.” The art of tattooing should be a protected form of speech because it is way of expressing them-selves like wearing your favorite t-shirt or putting on your favorite hat those are all protected forms of speech and are seen regularly every day in our lives. This lawsuit is an example of the Tinker v. De Moines case because they are both dealing with the same thing, whether or not a certain form of self-expression is a protected par tof speech. I could honestly not see why this would not be a protected part of speech in all states, seeing that is it wasn't protected it would be like not being able to wear your favorite sweater.

12/10/2015
Diamond Bar/CA
RandyP1
Wong/Lorbeer middle school
I think tattoos are a form of protected speech, because getting a tattoo is to express yourself or establish religion. The first amendment does not let congress make any law abridging the freedom of speech and establishing religion. Also, people getting tattoos have to go through a painful process and have to be dedicated to express themselves in that way. Not allowing the tattoo shop, people cannot express themselves or establish religion with tattoos which violates the constitution. I think the Arizona court made the right decision by making tattoos a form of self-expression.

12/10/2015
Diamon Bar, California
KaiP1
Wong/Lorbeer
I believe that the Arizona Supreme Court made the right decision because they ruled that tattoos,"may be purely decorative or serve religious, political, or social purposes.". The art of tattooing should be a protected form of speech because it is way of expressing them selves like wearing your favorite t-shirt or putting on your favorite hat those are all protected forms of speech and are seen regularly every day in our lives. This lawsuit is an example of the Tinker v. De Moines case because they are both dealing with the same thing, whether or not a certain form of self-expression is a protected part of speech. I could honestly not see why this would not be a protected part of speech in all states, seeing that is it wasn't protected it would be like not being able to wear your favorite sweater.

12/10/2015
Diamond Bar/CA
KarenP1
Wong/Lorbeer
I believe that tattoos are a form of self-expression, therefore shall be protected and secured by the First Amendment. A form of expression ranges from various options such as clothes, music, and just simply speech. The way I see it is if the "speech," the use of quotation marks is due to the fact that not all speeches are actually literal, does not do harm to people around or offend anyone intentionally, then there shouldn't be a problem. Many people get tattoos for the heck of it, or because they would like to have a permanent saying/drawing on their own skin (some cases may be because of being under the influence and not knowing about it). The point is there is a reason behind many tattoos such as a messages that are personal to someone or they indicate a person's story. They convey a meaning behind them which plays a major role in getting one. In the Supreme Court case, Anderson V. City of Hermosa, the court appealed to the decision that tattoos and the art of tattooing are protected forms of expression and I 100% agree with that.

12/10/2015
Diamond Bar, CA
Natalie Sicairos P5
Wong/Lorbeer
In my opinion, I believe that tattoos are a protected form of speech. When a person chooses a tattoo they might of chosen that tattoo design because it has a backstory to it or, the tattoo can be a quote or drawing that says a lot about that persons personality. Tattoos can have its own meaning to a person that means a lot to them but to you its just some random art on someones body. As it is stated in the Constitution, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..." Although a tattoo cannot speak it is self-expression. Same way with clothes and hair, you cannot talk through your clothes and hair but, it can say a lot about a person. In conclusion I believe that tattooing your body is a way to show your identity, self-expression, and that the Arizona Supreme Court made the right decision.

12/10/2015
Diamond Bar/CA
JosephP5
Wong/Lorbeer
I think that tattoos are protected speech. In the case Tinker v. Des Moines, the TInkers wore black armbands to show their support against the Vietnam war, but then the teachers got worried that fight were going to start, so they banned them, and in another case from a different school which name I cannot remember wanted to ban band t-shirts, but one student by the name of Ben Brewer, went full on rebel and wore his favorite band t-shirt, and got expelled for it. That is bull. The armbands were protected, the band t-shirts were protected, so I say that tattoos should also be protected.

12/10/2015
Diamond Bar, CA
BraedynP4
Wong/Lorbeer
I agree with the Arizona court in their decision that tattoos are free speech, and therefore protected speech. One may see tattooing as thuggish and unreasonable, though if that is ever the truth, it is rarely so. If anyone has ever seen or received a tattoo, it would typically be for artistic purposes, or in other cases, personal, or as mentioned, simply to express opinion. Tattoos can convey an image of a loved one, a symbol that has special meaning to the owner of the tattoo, a messaged based on their opinions, etc. The possiblities of a tattoo's meaning are practically endless. If anyone had considered inexpressive, then they probably hadn't looked into the content displayed in tattooing, and what a tattoo may really mean. Tattoos should indeed be protected speech, because it is undeniably expressive, and if someone were willing to have permanant art on their skin, it must be for a reason.

12/10/2015
Diamond Bar, CA
JosephP4
Wong/Lorbeer
I believe that tattoos are a form of speech because it expresses the person's personality. Tattoos are a form of speech because you are saying something on the tattoo. For example you could get a tattoo of a religious symbol or an animal. The tattoo would say you are religious or that you like that animal. Amendment 1 protects them by saying, "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech..." This means that congress cannot make a law that stops the freedom of speech.

12/10/2015
Diamond Bar, CA
NaderP5
Wong/Lorbeer
I believe tattoos are forms of speech because tattoos are self-expressions of people which shows their personalities or something close to that person. It's how people express something personal or important to them. Tattoos show who a person is and what they believe in. Tattoos are ways of art that people want to keep. After all tattoos don't her anybody only the people themselves. Closing down parlor shops will not only stop tattoos, but it could put tattoo parlors out of jobs and out of money. There could be tattoos that have their parents name on it or someone that died who was very close to them. I agree with the Arizona Supreme Court because tattoos are forms of freedom of speech and the First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech." That means the South Carolina Supreme Court can't forbid tattoos. If you can dye your hair why can't you dye your skin? I think the Arizona Supreme Court made the right choice of letting people have tattoos.

12/10/2015
Diamond Bar/CA
RubenL
Wong/Lorbeer
I believe that tattoos are a form of protected speech because most of the time, they are dedicated to someone or something. Tattoos can be about anything from a loved one, a famous person, religion, a symbol for something, or a quote from a book or person. Tattoos may mean nothing to one person, but they can mean a lot to another. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law......Prohibiting.....the freedom of speech," and supports tattoos because self-expression is the expression of one's feelings, thoughts, or ideas. I support the Arizona supreme court's decision because I believe that tattoos are a form of protected speech.

12/10/2015
Diamond Bar/California
PhilipP1
Wong/Lorbeer
I think that tattoos are a protected freedom of speech because anything that expresses what someone feels is a type of speech. The clothes you wear and even the music you listen to is a type of self expression and is protected by the first amendment of the Constitution.

12/10/2015
Irving/Tx
Daisy
Bradley/Nimitz
In the case of Coleman v. the City of Mesa, it was personal opinions that lead to the denial of the permit. Tattoos are freedom of expression and are protected by the first amendment, however, this case was more of a moral battle. Because representatives believed the business was "not appropriate for the location or in the best interests of the neighborhood",the city decided not to grant the permit, it was based on the values of those being represented. On the contrary, the city failed to see the value of the business and the possible gain-whether or not the location was appropriate, it should have been left up to the public to make it or break it. The government should focus on providing opportunities for individuals to live by their on means regardless of what they are. As long as the public is happy with their career choice, the government should be happy for their contribution.

12/10/2015
Murrieta, CA
Corey
Jabro/Creekside High School
The act of tattooing is a form of expression of that person on an individual level. People often get tattoos to represent who they are and what they love to do, and to prevent people from expressing themselves in this way is in violation of their First Amendment rights. The Arizona supreme court made the right choice and looked at this in a reasonable fashion.

12/10/2015
Diamond Bar, CA
EthanP1
Wong/Lorbeer
Tattoos are a form of protected speech because they can express who a person is. Self expression is when someone informs different people about who they are or what they like by either wearing certain clothing, painting a picture, or simply just writing a poem. Tattoos are a form of self expression because they could get a tattoo of something they like such as dogs. The Arizona Supreme Court did make the right decision because the First Amendment protects freedom of speech and self-expression and tattoos are a form of self-expression.

12/10/2015
Diamond Bar, CA
JerikaP4
Wong/Lorbeer
I believe that tattoos are protected speech because it can personally express how you feel. Say, if i had a favorite quote such as "They say that dreams can come true, but forgot to mention that nightmares are dreams, too." -Oscar Wilde, and that means a lot to me then i should have a right to say it visually and on my skin. Getting a tattoo is far more than drawing on your skin. Tattoos last forever making them far more than that. Not only that but some people might get religious symbols or quotes that help them show support towards their religion. The First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech…" Art speaks a million words if you look deep into it and appreciate it making tattoos protected by free speech.

12/9/2015
Diamond Bar
Franklin P1
Wong/Lorbeer
I feel that tattoos are a form of expression as they can convey a message or can tell a person's story. To many people tattoos are a sign of their individuality telling people that they are different from everyone else. If tattoos can convey this meaning then they are considered a protected form of expression. Many other people use tattoos to tell a story in their life or to express their feelings on a subject. In the supreme court case of Anderson V. City of Hermosa the supreme court's final decision was that tattoos and the art of tattooing are protected forms of expression.

12/9/2015
Diamond Bar, CA
AndreaP1
Wong/Lorbeer
I believe that tattoos are a form of protected speech because for some people, the purpose of getting a tattoo is to express something that it is important to them. Tattoos can describe a person just as much as their clothing can so I don't see a reason why people question the meaning of a tattoo and what they stand for. To me, tattoos have the same purpose as any other form of self-expression. The smallest things can make a huge impact in a person's life that others don't realize because, to me, tattoos are a more personal form of self-expression. I believe that the Arizona Supreme Court did make the right decision because taking away the act of tattooing takes away a person's constitutional right to free speech.

12/9/2015
Pomona, CA
AnyssaP1
Wong/Lorbeer
Self-expression is when an individual person showcases and expresses their personality, interests, and beliefs. Tattoos are a form of self-expression because they can be personal to a certain person, or they can show where someone stands on a specific belief. Tattoos also show someones interests without using communication. For example, someone may tattoo a cross or a Bible verse onto their body to show what their religion is. Another person may tattoo a lyric from a song that they find very personal to their life. Many individuals tattoo a loved ones name that has passed away, in remembrance of their relative. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech...", therefore, the First Amendment protects tattoos because they are a form of expression. The Arizona Supreme Court made the right decision because tattoos are creative way for an individual to express themselves to the public, to their family, and to their friends.

12/9/2015
Diamond Bar/CA
AaronP4
Wong/Lorbeer
Tattoos are a protected speech and are self expression and should be protected by the First Amendment. Tattoos can express a person's interest, cultural way of life, or something meaningful and close to the person. For example a tattoo that can be meaningful is the a tattoo showing the passing of a loved one. I do think the central component of tattooing is to show self expression. It isn't something just to do for fun, since it is permanent people do it to express something. I think the Arizona Supreme Court made the right decision. The claimed it was "forms of pure expression." I completely agree with them.

12/9/2015
Diamond Bar/CA
NicoleP5
Wong/Lorbeer
Tattoos are a protected from of expression because it could express something personal about the person of how he or she stands as an individual. A form of expression is when a person is representing something about themselves and showing themselves as a person. Tattoos could be a from of expression because some people have tattoos of religious quotes or symbol to represent how they stand on their religion. There are also many other tattoos that could show who a person actually is. The First Amendment supports the tattoos because they are a form of expression. The Arizona Supreme Court did make the right decision because tattoos could display how the person wants to be shown in public or simply with family and friends. It could also express their way of thinking through the creativity of the tattoo.

12/8/2015
Diamond Bar, CA
IsaiaP5
Wong/Lorbeer
I agree that tattoo's and tattooing are,''forms of pure expression fully protected by the first amendment''. The first amendment clearly states that ''Congress shall make no law..... abridging the freedom of speech...''. For many people tattoo's are an artistic form of expression. Some tattoo's can be cultural or very meaningful to an individual. I believe that the expression of the act of tattooing is the central component because according to the first amendment right,it is our right to choose what to do with our body and what goes on our body. In conclusion, I believe that the Arizona Supreme Court made the right decision by allowing the act of tattooing to continue in the city of Mesa, Arizona.

12/8/2015
Pomona/California
OlyviaP5
Wong/Lorbeer
Tattoos are a form of protected speech and self expression. They count as a form of self expression because they help us tell stories and express who we are. One's right to freedom of speech is taken away when they take away the tattoo shop. Our first amendment right is stolen when they take away our rights to tell our stories by putting them on our bodies. Tattoos are used as symbols to the person wearing them. Tattoos are the representatives of stories that have yet to be told. Therefore they are a protected form of speech and that tattoo parlor should not be ripped from the hands of people wanting to tell their stories without words.

12/8/2015
Diamond Bar, CA
NicoleP4
Wong/Lorbeer
If dyed hair is protected, then dyed skin (which is what tattoos really are) should also be protected. Tattoos affects your own body, not anybody else's. Most tattoos have significance to a loved one, thing, or place. Some are names of children, spouse, or family member. Others are about a book, television show, movie, band, or animal. Lots of times tattoos occur from a dare, late night party, or trying to impress someone. These tattoos express memories for the carriers. It expresses what they like, feel, or memories. They are protected free speech because it tells others memories, likes, interests, and what kind of a person they are. I have friends who parents got their child's name tattooed. One's mom had a miscarriage and got her (dead) son's face tattooed. That shows love, not just ruined skin.

12/7/2015
Diamond Bar, California
Abigail P4
Wong/Lorbeer
Tattoos are a form of self-expression because it depicts the individuality of a person. Therefore, it is protected speech and is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Tattoos can mean something to the person or remind them of who they are and what their purpose is. For example, people can have a hard time going through this life and once they have changed or viewed things in a different, new perspective, they would like to express themselves by getting a tattoo. In the article, it stated, "The Arizona court ruled unanimously that tattoos and tattooing are forms of free speech. It said that tattoos, which contain words, messages and art, “may be purely decorative or serve religious, political, or social purposes.” " I firmly believe that the Arizona Supreme Court was right in their final decision.

12/7/2015
Diamond Bar, California
Abigail P4
Wong/Lorbeer
Tattoos are a form of self-expression because it depicts the individuality of a person. Therefore, it is protected speech and is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Tattoos can mean something to the person or remind them of who they are and what their purpose is. For example, people can have a hard time going through this life and once they have changed or viewed things in a different, new perspective, they would like to express themselves by getting a tattoo. In the article, it stated, "The Arizona court ruled unanimously that tattoos and tattooing are forms of free speech. It said that tattoos, which contain words, messages and art, “may be purely decorative or serve religious, political, or social purposes.” " I firmly believe that the Arizona Supreme Court was right in their final decision.

12/7/2015
irving/tx
luz
Bradley/Nimitz
I believe that yes people have the right to express their ideas however they want to, but they should also think about themselves and their health. There is always a slight risk of infection or complications. Sometimes peoples bodies will reject certain colors. Tattoos might be cool and really important for some people, it might represent something special for them, it has some type of expression but it is not at the core of the process. In My opinion tattoos look unprofessional, even some jobs/employers are strict about "no visible tattoos". That is why i side with the south Carolina supreme court and disagree with the decision the Arizona supreme court made.

12/7/2015
Pomona/California
marissaPD1
Wong/Lorbeer
I do agree that tattoo or tattooing is a way of self-expression there may be other ways to show self expression but this shows some cultural ways are a way of showing love. Losing this way of self-expression basically takes away our creativity and our way to show how we are. Also to show how to represent something special. As for example Samoan men get body tattoos to show they are men and to show they have been through many hardships and life and those tattoos represent this.

12/7/2015
Diamond Bar, CA
EmilyP4
Wong/Lorbeer
Tattoos are a form of free speech because, they could express how you feel inside that you can't express with words. These tattoos can have many designs from maybe a shape to a face of a beloved lost one. Tattoos like ones' with your band logo can express how you feel by how you interperet the bands music. A tattoo can maybe seem like just a tattoo to many adults because, they don't know the meaning behing the image. Someone can have a tattoo of some phrase that their family or closest friends used to remind them to always remember what you have been through. The first ammendment guarentees protection of free speech. Since tattoos have a deeper meaning than just a picture they can be cosidered as a form of free speech.

12/6/2015
Pomona/California
Victoria Period 1
Wong/Lorbeer
I do agree that tattoos, along with the act of tattooing, are a form of self-expression. Tattoos are very artistic and very meaningful to an individual. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech..." For people to be unable to express themselves in the form of tattoos is exactly the type of contradiction the first amendment does not allow. Figuratively, tattoos say a lot about a person and their identity. In the end, I do believe that the Arizona Supreme Court made the right decision by allowing the act of tattooing to proceed in the city of Mesa, Arizona.

12/6/2015
Diamond Bar, CA
EmilyG P4
Wong/Lorbeer
I believe that tattoos are a protected speech of the first amendment. The first amendment guarantees the right to freedom of expression. Tattooing something on yourself is part of the expressive conduct. The expressive conduct is a nonverbal speech that intends to communicate a message. I think the Arizona Supreme Court made the right decision by saying that tattoos are a form of free speech.

12/6/2015
Diamond Bar, CA
EmilyG P4
Wong/Lorbeer
I believe that tattoos are a protected speech of the first amendment. The first amendment guarantees the right to freedom of expression. Tattooing something on yourself is part of the expressive conduct. The expressive conduct is a nonverbal speech that intends to communicate a message. I think the Arizona Supreme Court made the right decision by saying that tattoos are a form of free speech.

12/5/2015
Diamond Bar\CA
Angelica
Wong\Lorbeer
I think tattoos can definitely be a way of self-expression. People take pride in their tattoos by going through the painful process of getting one. It takes courage and bravery to receive a tattoo. Since a tattoo is permanent, this must be significant to the owner. Even though the tattoo could be irrelevant to the owner it was still their decision in doing so. Therefore, I believe tattoos are a form of expression which is protected by the First Amendment. I think expression is a central component of the act of tattooing because people won't sacrifice the burning pain during the process of a tattoo for something meaningless or out of this person's interests zone. In conclusion, I support Arizona Court because they claimed that tattoos are "purely expressive activity".

12/5/2015
Diamond Bar\CA
Angelica
Wong\Lorbeer
I think tattoos can definitely be a way of self-expression. People take pride in their tattoos by going through the painful process of getting one. It takes courage and bravery to receive a tattoo. Since a tattoo is permanent, this must be significant to the owner. Even though the tattoo could be irrelevant to the owner it was still their decision in doing so. Therefore, I believe tattoos are a form of expression which is protected by the First Amendment. I think expression is a central component of the act of tattooing because people won't sacrifice the burning pain during the process of a tattoo for something meaningless or out of this person's interests zone. In conclusion, I support Arizona Court because they claimed that tattoos are "purely expressive activity".

12/4/2015
Watertown/ Massachusetts
Nazely
Rimas/ Watertown High School
There is no law that prohibits the act of drawing on ones skin. Tattooing is a law for people to express how they feel without actually saying it out loud. Tattoos have important commemorative or even religious significance . Not allowing tattoo parlors in certain areas because people find it offensive is unnecessary. The Arizona Supreme Court understands that tattoos are very important for freedom of expression and should not be banned for no logical reason.

12/4/2015
Watertown
Olivia
Watertown High
Tattoos are a protected form of speech. It is against the law to express your own words in certain situations, but it is not against the law to express your words on your own skin.

12/4/2015
Watertown, Ma
Taylor
Rimas
Tattoos are protected free speech. It's on your body and they can not say anything about it. It's a personal choice to do this and if something is offensive to another person then they can't do anything about it. It's somebody's personal opinion of what they like on a body. If people are so offended by marks on somebody's body then they can get over it and walk away. Your body is yours and nobody should be allowed to say anything about it unless they are hurting themselves. People should only be allowed to say something if they are worried about the person harming themselves. But if they have tattoos piercing and crazy hair colors let them express themselves. If they are happy let them be happy. It is not anyone's right to say anything about anyone else's body.

12/4/2015
Watertown/MA
Farid
Rimas
Yes, Because it is a way for people to express themselves or remember a loved one that passed away. I know now of days tattoos are not as meaning fully but i still believe so.

12/4/2015
Watertown/Massachusetts
Nicole
Mr Rimas/Watertown high school
Tattoos are a way of expressing something a person feels. Tattoos have meaning and people take pride in them. A person should not be told that they can't express their beliefs. A tattoo parlor is not a place that should be shut down because it doesn't appeal to everyone. There are many reasons to get tattoos. People get tattoos to express themselves and represent a loved one. Tattoos are not something to be ashamed of and tattoo parlors should not be seen as a negative contribution to society.

12/4/2015
Watertown Massachusetts
Christian
Mr. Rimas Watertown high school
Tatoos are a form of freedom of speech. They are an expression of one self. No one should be told not to express themselves. It's not fair to the tatoo parlor, they have the right to express their art the way they want to.

12/4/2015
Watertown
Ryan
Rimas
I think tattoos can definitely be a way of freedom of speech, but I think it's to a certain extent. For example, religious figures and phrases can be seen as freedom of speech, but other in appropriate things shouldn't be seen as freedom of speech if they're unnecessary and don't need to be tattooed on your body

12/4/2015
Watertown/MA
Toni
Rimas/Watertown High
I think tattoos should be protected, people art work in museums and galleries are protected. Tattoos are just art work on people. If people express themselves on paper, then people who express themselves on their own bodies should also. If they didn't want people to acknowledge and appriciate the tattoo then they wouldn't have gotten it. Just because they have tattoos it doesn't make them any different than anyone else they're still people, and their art work on their body is still beautiful.

12/4/2015
Watertown/MA
Toni
Rimas/Watertown High
I think tattoos should be protected, people art work in museums and galleries are protected. Tattoos are just art work on people. If people express themselves on paper, then people who express themselves on their own bodies should also. If they didn't want people to acknowledge and appriciate the tattoo then they wouldn't have gotten it. Just because they have tattoos it doesn't make them any different than anyone else they're still people, and their art work on their body is still beautiful.

12/3/2015
Irving
Angelica
Bradley
Art is defined as "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form." the key words are "expression," "creative" and "visual." Tattoos usually consist of some design, image, word, phrase, or pattern--that's creativity. Its printed onto the skin--so its visual. From what I've seen around me (ie my moms memorial tattoo for her deceased father or my uncles tattoo of a symbol from his favorite anime--both ideas "express" something about both individuals), the majority of tattoos have some degree of significance to that individual--so that's expression in of itself. From the cliche barbed wire around the arm that expresses toughness to a portrait of the individuals daughter that expresses the value of family, tattooing by nature is expression; tattoos are art. The only distinguishing characteristic is: in tattooing, the canvas is the skin. If someone can go to a store to buy clothes to express themselves, go to a barber to get an edgy or unique haircut to express themselves, or get plastic surgery so the body can reflect the individuals idea of beauty to express themselves, why can't tattoos be acceptable? By definition, art is expression, and by definition, tattooing falls under art. First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech…” Speech is expression; expression is art. Art classifies tattooing. By definition, Tattoos are covered by the first amendment, and cannot be prohibited. In conclusion, I agree with the ruling of the Arizona Court when they declared tattoos being a form of free speech that is covered by the first amendment and that this right trumps the governments right to regulate business.

12/3/2015
Murrieta
Amber A
Jabro/creekside
In regards to the form of self-expression and what the difference can be in "freedom of speech", and "freedom of expressing." I believe that anyone should be available to do whatever they want to THEIR emphasis on THEIR body. Why I believe that is obviously stated, because it is THEIR body not yours, what gives you the right to say what they can and can't put on THEIR body and yes, even if offended me I would have no say nor opinion of what's on them and how they decide to represent themselves, it's not my job nor my business of what they want. So, regarding the question that is "are tattoos or the acting of tattooing a protected form of expression, or is it merely a small part of the action." I think it's part of freedom of speech, tattoos are obviously not talking, nor have a say but the people paying their money to do what they want to their body is part of freedom, period, And that's all that should matter regardless of Supreme Court's opinion on the matter, or else they would just be hypocrites.

12/3/2015
murrieta
austen h
jabro
Tattoos could be protected by freedom of speech, because it is an expressive component. Though the court can have a right to regulate business. Such as some cities won't allow bars in parts as it is deemed inappropriate for the environment.

12/3/2015
Irving/Texas
Leslie
Bradley/Nimitz
In my opinion, tattoos are a form of self-expression. The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech…” Tattoos shows creativity, but it also expresses a person’s beliefs or a person’s personality. For others, tattoos represent their identity (who they are). In other words, tattoos is considered to be a freedom of speech. I believe expression is the central component of the act of tattooing, and not only a small part of the action. I agree with Arizona Supreme Court because the court stated that “...tattoos contain words, messages and art, “may be purely decorative or serve religious, political, or social purposes.” The court ruled unanimously that tattoos and tattooing are forms of freedom of speech.

12/2/2015
Diamond Bar/ California
DylanP.5
Wong/Lorbeer
I think that tattoos are a form of self-expression. In the first amendment it clearly states," Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech" and I think tattooing yourself is a freedom of speech. It is your body, and you should be able to tattoo yourself if you want to. Getting a tattoo, for some people, helps them show their identity. The South Carolina Supreme Court was not following the Constitution.

12/2/2015
Diamond Bar/ California
DylanP.5
Wong/Lorbeer
I agree that getting a tattoo is a form of self-expression. In the first amendment it clearly states," Congress can make no law... abridging the freedom of speech" and I think that tattooing yourself is freedom of speech. It is your body, and you should be able to tattoo yourself if you want. Getting a tattoo is a way for other people to show their identity. The South Carolina Supreme Court was not following the Constitution.

12/2/2015
Murrieta/CA
Joshua Garcia
Mr. Jabro/Creekside high school
I disagree with the South Carolina Supreme Court. I strongly believe, that tattooing is a protected form of expression because, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals amendment supports the art and it is apart of the First Amendment free speech right in the U.S. Constitution. Though it is art, the act of tattooing is completely unnatural. It is simply a man made form of expression, which nature did not intend to do. In the end, the Arizona Supreme Court made the right decision in protecting the art of tattooing. Even though, It may not be natural, it still expresses us individual people.

12/1/2015
Vacaville, CA
Lauren S.
Hawkins / Buckingham Charter
The act of tattooing is a protected form of expression, and I believe that expression is the central component of tattooing. The Arizona Supreme Court did make the right decision in that banning a tattoo parlor was a violation of free speech. America is a free country, and in this country we have been blessed with free speech. A man or woman who either expresses their beliefs or opinions in the form on ink should not be denied that privilege. If someone were to deny that privilege, it would be a violation of the First Amendment. An exception would be what the community decides as a whole, based on what they believe. Our freedom is a part of what makes us a strong country, and not owning that freedom weakens the country as a whole.

12/1/2015
Vacaville CA
Andrew D.
Buckingham Charter/ Mr. Hawkins
Tattoos are a form of expression that should be protected by the first amendment. Tattoos convey ideas, beliefs, religious views, and even emotions. The central idea of a tattoo is expression, whether it is an expression of rebellion as a teenager, or statements of religious affiliation, tattoos convey opinions, just like speaking. I agree with the Arizona Supreme Court, tattoos are an expression, and the first amendment protects expression of religion, opinion, and new ideas; all of which are included in speech and tattoos. People choose to express themselves in a multitude of different ways, whether it be music, art, clothing, or even tattoos.

12/1/2015
Vacaville CA
Shelbie P.
Mr. Hawkins / Buckingham
Tattoos should be protected under the amendment of freedom of expression because they are personal expressions of a person that are permanently on their body. Yes, tattoos should be protected and people should have the right to put their own expressions on their body about what they believe in, but there is a line when expression becomes harmful to others, puts national security at risk, or breaks that law etc. These types of expressions are not protected because they are against the law, so the same should go with tattoos in order for them to be the same as expressive actions that a person does. I agree with the court ruling of Arizona Supreme Court because they allowed tattoos to be placed under the category of expression which then caused tattoos to become protected under the first amendment dealing with freedom of expression. Expression is the central component of the act of tattooing because when people choose to get tattoos, they are usually getting a tattoo that symbolizes or states something that is very personal to them. This is another reason why the act of tattooing and the tattoos themselves should be protected as long as they are not an unlawful expression.

12/1/2015
Vacaville CA
Bryce D.
Mr. Hawkins / Buckingham Charter
Yes, tattoos include many different forms of expression. They can include words, ideas, and art work. These are already widely considered forms of free speech. Most tattoos have some form of meaning whether it be representing a friendship, philosophy, or special moment in a person's life. There are many ways to explain the meaning of a tattoo to people. A person can walk by and notice it and relate by just seeing it, they could ask the recipient to explain what the tattoo means, or they could create their own meaning to the tattoo one that they can relate to. The Arizona Supreme Court definitely made the right decision because tattoos include many forms of speech that are incorporated into one image.

12/1/2015
Vacaville CA
Zachary B.
Mr. Hawkins / Buckingham Charter
Some believe that tattoos are a form of protected expression. Others see it as a way to share negative subject matter with others. The way I see it, there is a fine line between something that is expressive, and offensive. If there is someone that has a tattoo of a Muslim crescent moon and star, that is a protected form of expression that should not be tampered with. On the other hand, if someone has a tattoo of a swear word, or an under clothed person, that should not be a form of protected speech because it should not be seen by the general public. There is a great difference in expressing one’s self, and being inappropriate to the common folk.

12/1/2015
Vacaville / CA
Abigail
Mr. Hawkins / Buckingham Charter
Tattoos are a protected form of expression. Tattoos are something someone can freely decide to put on their body. Generally, people get tattoos because they want to symbolize something that means a lot to them. There are areas in towns where tattoo shops are appropriate, and areas where they are not appropriate. If one town is more conservative than another, the town that is more conservative may not allow a tattoo shop or very many, whereas the town that is not as conservative, such as big towns, you will find more tattoo shops because there is generally more exposure to different things. I believe that there is nothing wrong with having tattoo’s on your body. Tattoos are a form of expression, and we are allowed to express ourselves freely, and however we desire. I do not believe that you should be restricted to getting certain jobs because of tattoos. You should be allowed to express yourself in however you want to.

12/1/2015
Vacaville CA
Jacob Z.
Mr. Hawkins / Buckingham Charter
One should be able to tattoo whatever they like one their bodies, because it is a freedom of speech. Some people may get offensive tattoos, for example a swastika, and should be allowed to still get the tattoo because it is their own body. Now, I also believe that someone can be turned down employment from some place if they have tattoos that can be considered to some people in visible places on their body. The Arizona Supreme Court made the right decision because if people do not like the idea of tattoos then they can pass up the shop and not get a tattoo; the community should not hold back the people that do want to get a tattoo.

12/1/2015
Vacaville/CA
Brittany G.
Mr. Hawkins/Buckingham Charter
I personally believe that tattoos are a form of protected expression, because like art work that you would see on the streets of San Francisco or places like that, they are a way for people to express themselves as individuals. Expression is only a small part of the action of tattooing, because injecting your skin with ink does not require many aspects of expression. It is rather an action done to help show someone how to express them self. In this case, I think the South Carolina Supreme Court made the right decision in supporting the ideas of freedom of speech, art, and expression.

12/1/2015
Vacaville CA
Jordan M.
Mr. Hawkins / Buckingham Charter
Tattoos and the act of tattooing is a very controversial topic regarding free speech. I, for one, believe that it is a form a free speech. If a person is free to say what they want they should be able to ink what they want. I do think that the act of tattooing can get a little complicated. A tattoo artist may not feel comfortable putting something in particular on someone’s body. In that case I think it completely justified to refuse service to that someone. Though, if the artist is okay with it, go right ahead. Tattooing isn’t always an expression, but neither is speaking. Again, if people are free to say what they want whether it be expressive or not, they should be able to tattoo what they want. The Arizona courts made the right decision declaring tattooing an act of free speech. The law says that congress cannot interfere with free speech. If tattoos are someone’s chosen form of free speech, then it is not another man’s right to deny that. Yes, some tattoos can be offensive. There are some things in life that people do or say that is offensive. The offended audience can react how they see fit, but as far as the person “in the wrong” is concerned, it is indeed a free country. Tattoos are, without a doubt, practice of free speech.

12/1/2015
Vacaville CA
Kirstin L
Mr. Hawkins / Buckingham Charter
Tattoos are a protected form of expression. I agree the Arizona Supreme Court made the right decision to conclude that tattoos are protected. While tattoos may be protected in the First Amendment, this does not deny workplaces the right from rejecting an applicant from a position, or request the art to be covered, due to possibly offensive or risqué tattoos. With the growing popularity of tattooing, it is important to understand that it is a personal choice and as long as they aren’t threatening or exposing mature subjects, they should accepted in the public’s view.

12/1/2015
Vacaville CA
Terrin S.
Mr. Hawkins/Buckingham Charter
Tattoos are a form of expression that should be protected. They may express the person, be personal, or share their views on something. We only live once in this life so if somebody wants to get a tattoo let them get one. Everyone is different and is very unique. People express themselves differently from each other. Maybe somebody gets a tattoo of somebody who just passed away? They are showing respect and love for that person who passed away. What is the purpose of free speech if people can’t express themselves?

12/1/2015
Vacaville CA
Leila P.
Mr Hawkins / Buckingham Charter
If I was in a high ranking military or political position and I had “I hate America” tattooed across my forehead there would be some problems. However, if I had a large tattoo covering my arm dedicated to my sister who passed away in a car accident and I was not hired or persecuted for it that would not be okay either. The act of tattooing is about expression. People want to say something express their love for something when they permanently mark their body. In many ways, tattooing is a form of art, but more importantly it could be interpreted as a form of speech. People should be able to tattoo their bodies in whatever way they want, because it is their body. However, every action has a cause and effect and there are consequences for what we do. The consequences are not always fair, but if I had “I hate America” tattooed across my forehead I would not be upset if I was kicked out of the American military. Most of the time, however, people do not get tattoos of derogatory or offensive political statements. They get tattoos of things they have an emotional attachment to, and if I was to judge this argument by the majority I believe that we should protect people with tattoos and that they should have our Constitution’s protections.

12/1/2015
Vacaville/CA
Alyssa L
Mr. Hawkins/Buckingham Charter
Tattoos and the act of tattooing are both a protected form of expression. What purer expression exists than when a person takes an image or words that mean enough to them to put on their body forever? Tattoos are a method of expression that must remain protected. Expression is by nature the entirety of tattooing, any image a person feels strongly enough about to tattoo onto their body permanently is an expression of who that person is, and where they came from. I feel the Arizona Supreme Court made the right decision in this instance.

12/1/2015
Vacaville / CA
Grace F
Mr. Hawkins / Buckingham Charter
Tattoos are a form of expression and should be protected as such, without a doubt. Tattooing can be a form of art or it can be more direct speech, but in any case it is the use of symbols or words to convey some meaning whether personal, political, or mere beauty. I see this as the same as the clothes a person wears or the things a person says and should therefore also be free for the person to decide. Any form of media, art, or literature is protected under the first amendment of the constitution as the freedom of speech and expression, so tattooing should fall under the same category. I believe that Arizona was certainly correct in voting for tattooing as being protected under the US Constitution. However, I also believe that it should remain the community’s choice whether or not they wish to support a tattoo parlor. It is not in the Constitution that everyone should be able to build any business wherever they want, and if the community of Mesa is against the idea, they should have every right to deny business.

12/1/2015
Vacaville, CA
Madeline M.
Mr. Hawkins / Buckingham Charter
Tattoos and the act of tattooing is a protected form of expression because personal expression is the main component of a tattoo. Whether it is just on the person because they like the design or it has personal meaning, it is an art form and their way of expressing themselves. It reflects the person’s values, ideas, or interests. That is a form of speech. If the same design or picture was put onto a canvas it would be protected, why should that right be taken away just because it is inked into the skin? I think that it was okay for the city to not allow the tattoo shop to be built because it seemed to be more of zoning issue. If someone wanted to put something like a liquor store right next to a school, that would not be in the best interest of the students and city. I think town’s government would have the right to say that that is not allowed because it could be harmful to the students and community. People have the rights to their own thoughts and art, and should be allowed to express it as ink on their bodies.

12/1/2015
Vacaville/CA
Madison R.
Mr. Hawkins\ Buckingham charter
I believe that tattoos are a part of expression. People express themselves different ways, and people have different opinions and perspectives. Someone might think that someone’s tattoo is just a picture while that person and others may think it’s a form of expressed art that deserves respect. Peoples voices are protected so why aren’t the hands that create them, the people that say their words a different way than others. I think Arizona did the right thing and I agree with their choice of protecting those people. I also think people should not be denied their workspace if it will be used as a tattoo parlor, people make their money their own way and have their own talents. I do believe expression is the central act because it is the main reason for tattoos and most likely the beginning. That does not mean all tattoos are a form of expression but I believe a lot of them are.

12/1/2015
Vacaville California
Olivia E.
Mr. Hawkins/Buckingham Charter
I believe that tattoos are a form of expression. Just as a person would die their hair, or wear certain clothing; tattoos are a way an individual shows the world who they are. Although it is a form of expression, I don’t believe that it is a form of speech. Most tattoos are symbols and they represent something. Every individual who gets a tattoo is making a personal choice. As long as what they are doing is safe, no one should be able to tell another person if they can or cannot do something to their own body.

12/1/2015
Murrieta
Davin C
Jabro/ Creekside High School
I believe that tattoos are indeed a protected form of expression. That doesn't mean that a employer doesnt have the right to to demand you hide your tattoos or fire you because you have tattoos. If i were a employer, i wouldnt want my employees to be looking like thugs with tattoos

11/30/2015
Diamond Bar CA
Jordyn
kara, Lorbeer
I think tattoos are a form of protected speech by the first amendment because tattoos are on someone they make that decision it doesn't affect anyone else. Tattoos are not illegal and probably never will be because it is so common

11/30/2015
Murrieta/CA
Antoinette
Jabro/Creekside High School
I agree tattoos are a form of protected speech. in the first amendment freedom of speech is talked about but tattoos are just an artistic expression of it. Also its your body you should do as you please. And i think Arizona Supreme Court made the right decision.

11/30/2015
murrieta
isaac
jabro
you should be able to have tattoos on your body. if a job requires them to be hidden that is fine. but no one should be able to stop you from getting any on your own body

11/30/2015
Irving,Texas
Nicholas
Bradley/Nimitz
I believe that tattoos are a simple act of free expression. This is the equivalent of an artist being denied a place to perform due because that what he does isn't being denied the right to express is another attempt of making this government unjust by denying our basic rights. Just because something you don't agree of is being used or put in place doesn't mean that it is a waste of the space it used.

11/25/2015
Pomona/California
Monica/ 5th
Wong/Lorbeer
I do agree that tattooing yourself is an act of self-expression. As stated in the Constitution, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..." Although tattoos can not speak, they still show the persons' identity. If you want to get a tattoo it is your body, not the government's. In fact, the Arizona Supreme Court did make the right decision.

11/25/2015
Pomona/California
Monica/ 5th
Wong/Lorbeer
I do agree that tattooing yourself is an act of self-expression. As stated in the Constitution, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..." Although tattoos can not speak, they still show the persons' identity. If you want to get a tattoo it is your body, not the government's. In fact, the Arizona Supreme Court did make the right decision.

11/19/2015
Murrieta/California
Khedar Chuck Jones
Jabro/Creekside
Yeah tattoos are a form of protected speech. It is the first Amendment that says Freedom of Speech. And as long as it is on the persons own body it is that persons right to their own opinion.

Related News
Related Resources
Share