Re: [dvd-discuss] You can go swimming, but....

["Michael A Rolenz" <Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org>]

As an FA case, the SC court is quite right. The two are separate and It is 
a public health issue. but that isn't the reason for the law 

One of White's biggest opponents is state Sen. Jake
Knotts, a Republican who wants to keep the state free of
seedy tattoo parlors. 

One argues that the state must apply the least restrictive means here and 
48 other states have successfully done so requiring training, licensing, 
and inspections in varying degrees.




mickey <mickeym@mindspring.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
07/23/2002 04:51 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
        cc: 
        Subject:        [dvd-discuss] You can go swimming, but....


The ruling in this tatoo case sounds something like what we discussed 
here some time ago. That you have a right to something is viewed 
separately from the priveledge to exercise that right:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,58433,00.html

"State attorneys argued the law, which prohibits tattooing by anyone 
other than a doctor, is a public health issue. The justices upheld 
White's conviction, saying the First Amendment right to have a tattoo is 
a separate issue from the process of tattooing."

How does one argue against that?

mickeym