Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AZCentral)   Court rules that 1st amendment protects tattoos as freedom of expression and it's not the governments place to keep people from doing stupid things to their bodies, unless it's smoking or drinking soda   (azcentral.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, Arizona Supreme Court, 1st amendment, Arizona Constitution, Goldwater Institute, court orders, out-of-bounds, fundamental rights, lower courts  
•       •       •

4142 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Sep 2012 at 2:31 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



43 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-09-07 10:59:54 PM  
Who the hell smokes soda?
 
2012-09-07 11:28:37 PM  

King Something: Who the hell smokes soda?


That is an advanced skill.
 
2012-09-08 12:04:22 AM  

King Something: Who the hell smokes soda?


www.thefablife.com
 
2012-09-08 12:48:45 AM  
So police departments that ban cops from getting tattoos are violating the 1st Amendment now?
 
2012-09-08 01:26:58 AM  
A tattoo is a form of symbolic speech that communicates to others that you're low class. So of course it's protected by the 1st Amendment.
 
2012-09-08 02:38:40 AM  
 
2012-09-08 02:44:36 AM  
use your life savings & probably go deep in debt opening a business in a town / atmosphere where they have made it perfectly clear your kind isn't welcome? yup, that's a business plan that smells of success.

the town father types and local law will make your lives miserable. sometimes it just isn't worth poking the bear. i'd much rather work or live where my kind is welcome or at least tolerated.
 
2012-09-08 02:50:58 AM  

BullBearMS: Meanwhile the Obama administration was in federal court this week arguing that it doesn't need a warrant to use your cell phone to track your every move.

The Obama administration told a federal court Tuesday that the public has no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in cellphone location data, and hence the authorities may obtain documents detailing a person's movements from wireless carriers without a probable-cause warrant.


yeah but romney and bain capital
 
2012-09-08 02:54:14 AM  
FTA: "people favoring the tattoo parlor were countered by several neighborhood residents who feared the shop would attract unsavory elements."

Doesn't a large percentage of young adults have tattoos and piercing these days? This is 2012, a tattoo parlor will attract as much "unsavory elements" as a supermarket or a bank. It is not unlikely that the lawyers representing the city have their own body modifications.
 
2012-09-08 02:56:45 AM  

SkinnyHead: A tattoo is a form of symbolic speech that communicates to others that you're low class. So of course it's protected by the 1st Amendment.


Assuming first amendment rights also cover bad mouthing the police department in public and keeping your job...
 
2012-09-08 02:57:38 AM  

Triumph: So police departments that ban cops from getting tattoos are violating the 1st Amendment now?


Maybe I was trying to reply to this one...
 
2012-09-08 02:58:15 AM  

GORDON: BullBearMS: Meanwhile the Obama administration was in federal court this week arguing that it doesn't need a warrant to use your cell phone to track your every move.

The Obama administration told a federal court Tuesday that the public has no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in cellphone location data, and hence the authorities may obtain documents detailing a person's movements from wireless carriers without a probable-cause warrant.

yeah but romney and bain capital


Thats why im voting for elizabeth warren for president. Thatll teach those guys a lesson!
 
2012-09-08 03:10:19 AM  

GORDON: BullBearMS: Meanwhile the Obama administration was in federal court this week arguing that it doesn't need a warrant to use your cell phone to track your every move.

The Obama administration told a federal court Tuesday that the public has no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in cellphone location data, and hence the authorities may obtain documents detailing a person's movements from wireless carriers without a probable-cause warrant.

yeah but romney and bain capital


yeah but birth certificate
 
2012-09-08 03:10:57 AM  
www.inquisitr.com
 
2012-09-08 03:13:19 AM  

KrispyKritter: use your life savings & probably go deep in debt opening a business in a town / atmosphere where they have made it perfectly clear your kind isn't welcome? yup, that's a business plan that smells of success.

the town father types and local law will make your lives miserable. sometimes it just isn't worth poking the bear. i'd much rather work or live where my kind is welcome or at least tolerated.


you sound droidish
 
2012-09-08 03:20:06 AM  
I love how all these things are so important enough to protect - including fraudulently claiming to be prior military - yet say nothing but the word "bomb" while walking through airport checkin and you'll be in jail before you can take another breath (if they let you...). They even tell you not to tell jokes about anything, or such.

Eh, whatever.
 
2012-09-08 03:24:02 AM  
False equivalency dumbsub, Adults smoking or drinking soda has never been outlawed as was the issue here.
 
2012-09-08 03:37:50 AM  
When I used to do hiring for a previous company, I did in fact look at their tattoos. I hired people to go out into public and represent the company. If tattoos were visible, they had to at least not be offensive. Face and neck tattoos were an instant rejection. However, I never came out and rejected them for it. Instead I would just focus on the negatives of the job, sometimes inventing issues, knowing that they'd turn me down. If tattoos were visible and tasteful or at least not offensive I didn't care.

Me, I have tattoos, only three, and most likely, that's going to be it. I have so many scars and old injuries that any more would be painful (or more painful than a tattoo usually is). Plus, with the job I just got hired for, it's going to be difficult to do a professional presentation with a tattoo on my lower arms.

Finally, if someone wants to get a body mod, the government shouldn't have a say. Even to the stuff that they have banned, like that mod that forks the human tongue. Not what I would ever want to do, but if someone wants to do it, the government shouldn't have the ability to outlaw it. If there is anything on this planet that you can say, without a doubt, that you absolutely own, it is your body and no one or governing force, should have the power to force you to modify or not modify it as you see fit. Just understand that there are consequences to your actions and while tattooing your eye balls yellow, forking your tongue, tattooing your neck and implanting calcium into your skull to grow horns will make you look awesome in college, when you graduate and have to start looking for work, it's going to make landing that awesome job infinitely more difficult.
 
2012-09-08 03:43:39 AM  
Warrentless wiretapping and body scans are still okay.

But at least we have freedom from taste, amirite?
 
2012-09-08 03:44:33 AM  

BullBearMS: Meanwhile the Obama administration was in federal court this week arguing that it doesn't need a warrant to use your cell phone to track your every move.
The Obama administration told a federal court Tuesday that the public has no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in cellphone location data, and hence the authorities may obtain documents detailing a person's movements from wireless carriers without a probable-cause warrant.


WTF does that have to do with anything? Does your obsession with Obama make you unable to see what the topic of the thread is?
 
2012-09-08 04:03:47 AM  
I'm disappointed by the lack of cool tattoo pics in this thread.
 
2012-09-08 04:46:08 AM  

tomerson: False equivalency dumbsub, Adults smoking or drinking soda has never been outlawed as was the issue here.


Well that and you'd be hard pressed to find a social cost of tattoos where smoking and obesity both affect health care costs.

GORDON: BullBearMS: Meanwhile the Obama administration was in federal court this week arguing that it doesn't need a warrant to use your cell phone to track your every move.

The Obama administration told a federal court Tuesday that the public has no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in cellphone location data, and hence the authorities may obtain documents detailing a person's movements from wireless carriers without a probable-cause warrant.

yeah but romney and bain capital


I'm absolutely against that stance and I'm tired of the erosion of 4th amendment rights, but you're kidding yourself if you think Romney would be anything but worse in that regard. The Republicans are the party of national security and "if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to worry about" and being "tough on crime".
 
2012-09-08 06:32:22 AM  
www.blogcdn.com
 
2012-09-08 07:05:20 AM  

BullBearMS: Meanwhile the Obama administration was in federal court this week arguing that it doesn't need a warrant to use your cell phone to track your every move.

The Obama administration told a federal court Tuesday that the public has no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in cellphone location data, and hence the authorities may obtain documents detailing a person's movements from wireless carriers without a probable-cause warrant.


I don't agree with it in a normative sense, but it's the logical extension of three decades of 4th, 8th, and 14th Amendment restrictions enabled by "strict constitutionalist" Supreme Court Justices.


Your phone broadcasts its ID automatically in response to cell tower signals. It's not broadcasting to a specific person or even to a specific company - it'll hit towers that don't belong to your provider - so you don't even "own" the data trail that you leave behind, so you don't even have standing to object to the government automatically harvesting everything all the time.

Oh wait they've been doing that since March

From Eben Moglen's 'Innovation Under Austerity' speech (which is also on YouTube):
A senior government official in this government said to me after the United States changed its rules about how long they keep information on everybody about whom nothing is suspected - you all do know about that right? Rainy Wednesday on the 21st of March, long after the close of business, Department of Justice and the DNI, that's the Director of National Intelligence, put out a joint press release announcing minor changes in the Ashcroft rules, including a minor change that says that all personally identifiable information in government databases at the National Center for Counter-Terrorism that are based around people of whom nothing is suspected, will no longer be retained as under the Ashcroft rules for a maximum of 180 days, the maximum has now been changed to 5 years. Which is infinity.

I told my students in my classroom, the only reason they said 5 years was they couldn't get the sideways eight into the font for the press release, so they used an approximation. So I was talking to a senior government official of this government about that outcome and he said well you know we've come to realize that we need a robust social graph of the United States. That's how we're going to connect new information to old information. I said let's just talk about the constitutional implications of this for a moment. You're talking about taking us from the society we have always known, which we quaintly refer to as a free society, to a society in which the United States government keeps a list of everybody every American knows. So if you're going to take us from what we used to call a free society to a society in which the US government keeps a list of everybody every American knows, what should be the constitutional procedure for doing this? Should we have, for example, a law? He just laughed. Because of course they didn't need a law. They did it with a press release on a rainy Wednesday night after everybody went home, and you live there now.



And here's the press release.


But hey, there's a new version of an iPhone coming out, another model you can never 100% turn off or take the battery out of and this one's got patented technology that lets government agents shut down your mic, your camera, or your ability to upload data whenever they want. It's so cool it's probably worth giving up your "rights" that you weren't really using anyways.
 
2012-09-08 07:23:11 AM  

Omahawg: [www.inquisitr.com image 475x275]


The new face of Journalism exercising their Frst Amendment rights
 
2012-09-08 07:26:03 AM  

BullBearMS: Meanwhile the Obama administration was in federal court this week arguing that it doesn't need a warrant to use your cell phone to track your every move.

The Obama administration told a federal court Tuesday that the public has no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in cellphone location data, and hence the authorities may obtain documents detailing a person's movements from wireless carriers without a probable-cause warrant.


That shiat's been an issue since a couple years after the Patriot Act was signed. Deflection is deflecting.
 
2012-09-08 07:27:54 AM  

GORDON: BullBearMS: Meanwhile the Obama administration was in federal court this week arguing that it doesn't need a warrant to use your cell phone to track your every move.

The Obama administration told a federal court Tuesday that the public has no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in cellphone location data, and hence the authorities may obtain documents detailing a person's movements from wireless carriers without a probable-cause warrant.

yeah but romney and bain capital


yeah but Obama and Solyndra/Argonaut Ventures/George Kaiser
 
2012-09-08 07:46:48 AM  
Yes, you can do stupid thigns with your body as long as it does not cost the rest of us money. But since many of you are insisting the rest of us pick up the tab for your health care we the tax payers step in by the means of government to minimize how deeply you reach into our wallet ie. getting fat, lung cancer, STDs, self mutilation like tattoos and piercings.

If you do not want other people /government regulating what you do with your body stop asking that they pay for the consequences of what you do with your body. When you take other peoples money you have to expect them wanting some control over how you spend it.
 
2012-09-08 08:53:18 AM  
People still believe that our President's are more than just figureheads playing a role? Really?

/hint: Santa Claus isn't real
 
2012-09-08 09:19:50 AM  

talkertopc: FTA: "people favoring the tattoo parlor were countered by several neighborhood residents who feared the shop would attract unsavory elements."

Doesn't a large percentage of young adults have tattoos and piercing these days? This is 2012, a tattoo parlor will attract as much "unsavory elements" as a supermarket or a bank. It is not unlikely that the lawyers representing the city have their own body modifications.


That's why they're representing te city and not Exxon or Apple.
 
2012-09-08 09:23:40 AM  
Driving without a seatbelt - illegal. Driving a motorcycle - legal.
 
2012-09-08 09:59:40 AM  
Smoking has a nasty tendency to affect EVERYONE AROUND THE PERSON SMOKING AS WELL. So fark you if you smoke and only think it affects you.
 
2012-09-08 10:40:50 AM  
You know what other government was all over tatoos, even making people get them when they didn't want one?
 
2012-09-08 11:45:37 AM  

BullBearMS: Meanwhile the Obama administration was in federal court this week arguing that it doesn't need a warrant to use your cell phone to track your every move.

The Obama administration told a federal court Tuesday that the public has no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in cellphone location data, and hence the authorities may obtain documents detailing a person's movements from wireless carriers without a probable-cause warrant.
, non sequitor.


FTFY
 
2012-09-08 12:18:38 PM  
America is farked.
 
2012-09-08 12:40:13 PM  

tomerson: False equivalency dumbsub, Adults smoking or drinking soda has never been outlawed as was the issue here.


Not sure if serious.
 
2012-09-08 12:42:32 PM  

TheOriginalEd: Smoking has a nasty tendency to affect EVERYONE AROUND THE PERSON SMOKING AS WELL. So fark you if you smoke and only think it affects you.


Blows smoke in your direction.

You know its not those laws in question.
 
2012-09-08 01:08:43 PM  

talkertopc: FTA: "people favoring the tattoo parlor were countered by several neighborhood residents who feared the shop would attract unsavory elements."

Doesn't a large percentage of young adults have tattoos and piercing these days? This is 2012, a tattoo parlor will attract as much "unsavory elements" as a supermarket or a bank. It is not unlikely that the lawyers representing the city have their own body modifications.


Having sat through my fair share of city council meetings (not for Mesa, but similar types of suburbs), "This will attract the wrong element" is the default complaint for most everything. Malls, parks, wider roads, Walmart, trails, bowling alleys, Steak and Shake, tree nurseries; all of these things will attract the wrong element, according to people who go to city council meetings.
 
2012-09-08 03:46:46 PM  

TheOriginalEd: Smoking has a nasty tendency to affect EVERYONE AROUND THE PERSON SMOKING AS WELL. So fark you if you smoke and only think it affects you.


It it keeps away people like you, excellent.
 
2012-09-08 05:18:11 PM  

GORDON: BullBearMS: Meanwhile the Obama administration was in federal court this week arguing that it doesn't need a warrant to use your cell phone to track your every move.

The Obama administration told a federal court Tuesday that the public has no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in cellphone location data, and hence the authorities may obtain documents detailing a person's movements from wireless carriers without a probable-cause warrant.

yeah but romney and bain capital


Don't worry, they'll be feeding a court similar bullshiat if they end up in the WH.
 
2012-09-08 07:55:01 PM  

cryinoutloud: WTF does that have to do with anything?


What does the Bill of Rights have to do with itself?

The butthurt is strong with this one.

The guy who promised to put an end to Bush lawlessness has instead continued it and ramped it up to eleven.
 
2012-09-08 08:44:55 PM  

talkertopc: FTA: "people favoring the tattoo parlor were countered by several neighborhood residents who feared the shop would attract unsavory elements."

Doesn't a large percentage of young adults have tattoos and piercing these days? This is 2012, a tattoo parlor will attract as much "unsavory elements" as a supermarket or a bank. It is not unlikely that the lawyers representing the city have their own body modifications.


It seems that you have not noticed but a large percentage of "young adults" are unsavory at best.
 
2012-09-09 05:45:40 PM  
Tattoos are a great form of self expression but to be honest I'm not sure they fall into the category of free speech. My boss says my tattoos are intimidating to customers and I cover them up at work with Ink Armorsleeves. I love my ink and I hate to say it but he's right. I work in retail sales on partial commission and I make a whole lot more sales when my arms are covered. I think we all have the right to express ourselves but that doesn't mean your employer will have to listen or change their business plan so you can go to work with a flesh eating zombie on your arm...although that would be cool.
 
Displayed 43 of 43 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report