<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
     xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
     xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
     xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
     xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
     xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
     xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
     xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
     xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
     xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/">
    <channel>
        <title><![CDATA[tattoos - Law Offices of William W. Bruzzo]]></title>
        <atom:link href="https://www.bruzzolaw.com/blog/tags/tattoos/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
        <link>https://www.bruzzolaw.com/blog/tags/tattoos/</link>
        <description><![CDATA[Law Offices of William W. Bruzzo's Website]]></description>
        <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Oct 2024 00:45:39 GMT</lastBuildDate>
        
        <language>en-us</language>
        
            <item>
                <title><![CDATA[Tattoos Protected Under First Amendment Says Court]]></title>
                <link>https://www.bruzzolaw.com/blog/tattoos-protected-under-first-amendment-says-court/</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.bruzzolaw.com/blog/tattoos-protected-under-first-amendment-says-court/</guid>
                <dc:creator><![CDATA[Law Offices of William W. Bruzzo]]></dc:creator>
                <pubDate>Fri, 24 Sep 2010 02:25:00 GMT</pubDate>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
                
                
                    <category><![CDATA[first-amendment]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[Hermosa-Beach]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[tattoos]]></category>
                
                
                
                <description><![CDATA[<p>The 9th Circuit Court has explained that the Hermosa Beach ban on tattoo parlors is unconstitutional. The reasoning behind the decision is based on the recognition of the tattoo as being protected under the first amendment. The images or words placed by the tattoo artist can be based on a person’s life experiences, preferences or&hellip;</p>
]]></description>
                <content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="wp-block-image">
<figure class="alignright size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="320" height="320" src="/static/2022/11/tattoo.jpeg" alt="Tattoo" class="wp-image-1065" srcset="/static/2022/11/tattoo.jpeg 320w, /static/2022/11/tattoo-300x300.jpeg 300w, /static/2022/11/tattoo-150x150.jpeg 150w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 320px) 100vw, 320px" /></figure></div>


<p>The 9th Circuit Court has explained that the Hermosa Beach ban on tattoo parlors is unconstitutional. The reasoning behind the decision is based on the recognition of the tattoo as being protected under the first amendment. The images or words placed by the tattoo artist can be based on a person’s life experiences, preferences or their relationships with other people. What the end result looks like is based on what the individual wants the image to convey similar to an illustration to a story. The Hermosa Beach ordinance banning the parlors stems from a concern of the possibilities of health risks because the tattoo is basically an open wound that has ink placed over it. The city plans to appeal the decision.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
            </item>
        
    </channel>
</rss>