[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] You can go swimming, but....
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] You can go swimming, but....
- From: "Michael A Rolenz" <Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 08:29:48 -0700
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
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.
Sent by: firstname.lastname@example.org
07/23/2002 04:51 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss
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:
"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?