Home Who We Are High School Conference Newsletter Speakers Bureau Articles 10th Anniversary Symposium Middle School Page Civics Day High School Contest

News articles about the case: Needling South Carolina: Florence Man Enlists Whitewater Attorney Ken Starr to Challenge S.C. Tattoo Ban (Columbia Free Times) [free-times.com] Tattoo Taboo: In South Carolina, You Can't Get One (Wall Street Journal) [loper.org] Legal Documents: Final Respondent Brief (The South Carolina Attorney General, representing the State of South Carolina before the Supreme Court of South Carolina) September 17, 2001. Opinion of the Supreme Court of South Carolina March 4, 2002 Petition for Certiorari Ronald White's request that the United States Supreme Court consider his appeal. March 21, 2002 Health Issues Tattoos and Permanent Makeup U. S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Office of Cosmetics and Colors Fact Sheet November 29, 2000 (discusses risks of tattoos) [FDA.gov] Tattoo Equipment and Dyes are not "actively" regulated by the FDA. [FDA.gov] Fact Sheet - HIV and Its Transmission - CDC-NCHSTP-Divisions of HIV/AIDS Prevention. (Centers for Disease Control) [cdc.org] History The Changing Cultural Status of Tattoo Art [Tattooartist.com] Other Freedom Tattoo (Ronald P. White's Website) Materials to Aid Conference Preparation Oct 7 2002 update: Supreme Court Passes Up Tattoo Case By GINA HOLLAND Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP)--The buttoned-down Supreme Court is not ready to decide if tattoos are art. The court, known for protecting First Amendment free speech rights, has never said people have a right to give or get tattoos. Justices, as expected, refused Monday to address the subject. Two states--South Carolina and Oklahoma--forbid getting body inscriptions there but allow residents to go to other states to get their body parts decorated. A South Carolina tattoo artist who was prosecuted for giving a tattoo on a television news program had challenged the ban, arguing that he had a First Amendment right to practice his art. He was backed by tattoo and free speech groups and a curator at the American Museum of National History who told the court that tattooing dates back to the earliest beginnings and has been used most recently by survivors of the terrorist attacks. The justices without comment left undisturbed a lower court ruling against Ronald White, who must pay $500 for illegal tattooing. ``In a free society, this is intolerable,'' White's attorney, former special prosecutor Kenneth Starr, had told justices in a filing. South Carolina argued that White can use non-permanent materials like body paint or henna, with no health risks. Its 36-year-old ban allows doctors to tattoo a patient before surgery. Ronald White, a retired tattoo artist, was arrested in South Carolina after he gave a tattoo demonstration on television. It's illegal to give a person a tattoo in South Carolina. Mr. White was prosecuted and convicted of breaking the law. Mr. White argues that while he did give a person a tattoo, the law is unconstitutional under the First Amendment, meaning that the state law itself is invalid because it contradicts the federal constitution. The state of South Carolina argues that giving a tattoo is not speech protected by the First Amendment and that a state has the right to regulate activity as long as the regulation doesn't violate the federal constitution. Mr. White appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of South Carolina, which upheld (agreed with) his conviction. Mr. White has now appealed to the United States Supreme Court, asking the Court to agree to hear the case. In this effort, Mr. White has enlisted the assistance of Ken Starr, made famous for his role as Independent Counsel in the Whitewater Investigation of President Clinton. The Supreme Court is currently deciding whether it wishes to get involved in the case and hear arguments from each side. At the Conference, we will pretend that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case and you will get to make arguments for one side or another. Some students will act as attorneys for the tattoo artist Mr. White and some students will act as the South Carolina Attorney General representing the state. You will need to research the law and the facts to be able to make an argument. In essence, the argument for Mr. White would be “The First Amendment prevents a state for prohibiting the act of tattooing because ….”. The argument for South Carolina will be “The First Amendment does not prevent a state from prohibiting the act of tattooing because ….” It’s that “because” part that’s the hard part. Below is an outline of the arguments you could use. On the right is a list of other resources on tattooing and this case and a search box for google. If you would like to look up Supreme Court cases mentioned in the other materials, an internet tool is provided at the bottom of the page. Below are some sample arguments that can be made for Ronald White and the State of South Carolina drawn from the court documents. You may find it helpful to get some additional facts and arguments from the briefs, court decisions and the internet. Arguments for Ronald White Tattooing is speech and protected by the First Amendment. Tattooing is an art form The First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting the freedom of speech Art is a form of speech Not dangerous. As long as tattoo parlors use clean equipment, it’s safe. Most common problems with tattoos are people not liking the tattoo, not health risks The FDA does not regulate tattoo equipment or inks because they believe that with care, they are safe. South Carolina admits that tattoos are art, but prohibits an artist from applying a tattoo. This case is just like Bery v. State of New York. NY banned selling art in public places. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals declared the NY law unconstitutional because art is “inherently expressive” regardless of whether it has a “particularized message” States may regulate acts under the First Amendment, but they can’t ban them outright. Banning an entire medium of expression violates the First Amendment, as the Supreme Court has held in cases regarding bans on residential signs, live entertainment, handbills, door-to-door distribution of literature and pamphlets. It would be better if South Carolina’s concerns about safety were expressed through requiring licensing or passing regulations about sterilization procedures; not through banning the entire art form. Banning tattooing violates the First Amendment twice. Citizens are deprived of the right to wear tattoos because tattoo artists are prevented from drawing them. Arguments for South Carolina Dangerous A Hepatitis outbreak in New York in the 1960s was caused by a tattoo artist Even Mr. White agrees that there are risks from unsafe tattooing. Art is only speech if it conveys a message and that message is likely to be understood by viewers. Tattooing is not art. Tattooing is not the same as wearing a tattoo Tattoos might communicate a message; but the act of giving a tattoo does not. Tattooing is an act, not speech. The First Amendment protects speech, not acts. Tattoos are not banned in South Carolina, just tattooing. The First Amendment rights of tattoo wearers are protected Banning tattooing by non-doctors is reasonable South Carolina is not the only state with this law. Oklahoma prohibits tattoos too. In the 1980s, Indiana banned tattooing by non-doctors even for “artistic purposes”. The Indiana Court of Appeals said the state law did not violate the First Amendment. Doctors are trained to prevent diseases from spreading, tattoo artists are not The South Carolina law is not a total ban. It allows doctors to give tattoos where necessary as part of cosmetic or reconstructive surgery. States can pass reasonable laws as long as they don’t violate the Constitution (and this doesn’t) Prohibiting non-doctors from tattooing is just another way of regulating it and keeping the people of South Carolina safe. It’s not banning expression. U.S. Supreme Court Opinions FindLaw's searchable database of the Supreme Court decisions since 1893 (U.S. Supreme Court Decisions: US Reports 150-, 1893-). Browsable by year and US Reports volume number and searchable by citation, case title and full text. Browsing U.S. Supreme Court Decisions: by volume, by year Citation Search U.S.  e.g. 410 U.S. 113 Title Search  e.g. Roe v. Wade Full-Text Search  [ options ]