Prejudice-Based Tattoo Laws in South Carolina Violate Constitutional Rights

By design, anything not specifically written into the Constitution falls to the states to regulate. Many times, the laws made by states are direct violation of the Constitution and are quickly challenged and stricken from the books. However, there are those few times laws slip by unchallenged.

In 2004 the South Carolina General Assembly passed The South Carolina Tattoo Act, an act that amends the 1976 tattoo laws of the state. No one questioned the constitutionality of the law and now legal adults, who can vote, get married and serve in the armed forces have to have parental consent in order to get a tattoo.

Chapter 34, Section 44-34-100 of South Carolina law states:

A tattoo artist must verify by means of a picture identification that a recipient is at least twenty-one years of age or, if the person is at least eighteen years of age has parental consent.

While raising the drinking age to 21 has no doubt saved lives, what purpose does the age of 21 serve in someone's ability to be tattooed? Is it serve any other purpose than humiliation and embarrassment to make a 20 year old married serviceman home on leave get a signature from one of his parents stating that he is ALLOWED to get a tattoo? When a person turns 18, the parents have no legal rights over their children. To make any law extending that guardianship, if the child is not any way handicapped, is a direct violation of civil liberties and constitutional freedom.

South Carolina has accomplished nothing with the South Carolina Tattoo Act other than to reinforce stereotypes and stigmas that the tattoo community has worked so hard to overcome. This is a law that was written out of prejudice to make tattooing as unlucrative as possible, probably to keep the "undesirables" at a minimum.

Consider other parts of the law.

It is unlawful for a tattoo artist to tattoo any part of the head, face, or neck of another person.

This is a direct violation of the First Amendment as it takes away some aspect of a person's freedom of speech. The First Amendment protects pornographers and their right to make movies that not everyone in the country approves of, so by all rights the First Amendment protects a persons right to be tattooed on whatever part of the body they want. The face, neck and head are places that are not able to be covered. This means that the state does not want anyone to sport tattoos that those who made the law might be forced to see. These places are no more dangerous to get tattooed than any other part of the body. If being a "dangerous place" to get tattooed were a real concern, genitals would have been added to this list. While protecting the rights of some people to not to have to look at something they don't want to, the constitutional freedom, not to mention the cultural and religious beliefs, of other groups were taken away.

Religion and culture rarely exist separately of each other and it would be nearly impossible to separate the two. Since the beginning of time culture has played a part in religion and religion has played a part in culture and the United States is one of the most culturally diverse areas of the world. Because of the diversity we are seeing more and more people of Maori decent getting Mokos to celebrate and embrace their heritage. The Moko is an elaborate facial tattoo that, among the Maori, tells their position in Maori society as well as the family's ancestry. It is as unique to the person wearing it as their thumbprint.

The Maori aren't the only ones who tattoo their face. The Atayal of eastern Taiwan tattoo their face. It signifies that one has reached adulthood and is eligible for marriage. It is believed that the facial tattoos allow the spirits of deceased ancestors to recognize them when they enter the afterlife.

Many Native American tribes tattooed their faces and the practice is making resurgence as they try to hold onto what is left of their culture.

To illegalize facial tattoos in any part of the United States is risking denying someone of their religious and cultural right, and that is a form of discrimination. Tattoo artists have a certain professional integrity that they uphold and they tend to self regulate certain things in their chosen field. Most tattoo artists will not tattoo someone's hands, face, head or neck if the person asking for it is not a tattoo artist or someone who is already heavily inked. Even rarer is the tattoo artist that would agree to give someone a hand, face, neck or head tattoo as their first tattoo. To the artist, it's a common sense thing and they have an obligation to deny to tattoo these areas of someone who has not given serious consideration to the social repercussions and is doing something just to be cool.

The department (DHEC - Department of Health and environmental Control) must not grant or issue a license to a tattoo facility if the place of business is within one thousand feet of a church, school or playground.

I am not sure if this just part of the South Carolina Tattoo Act or if there is also a zoning law that states this. Regardless, the intent is to protect children. What are they being protected from? The "undesirables" of society? Tattoos are no longer regulated to circus freaks, criminals and gang members. Doctors, lawyers, musicians, actors, artists, professional athletes, and other "contributing respectable" members of society have tattoos. While the state has the right to set zoning laws, in this case the law is, once again, very discriminatory. It does nothing but reinforce the stereotypes and teach children that people with tattoos are to be feared and avoided.

A tattoo facility may only provide tattoo and may not engage in any other retail business including, but not limited to, the sale of goods or performing any form of body piercing other than tattooing.

I am sure that those who made this law have very limited knowledge of body modifications and didn't bother to educate themselves. Piercers and tattooists alike attend classes designed specifically for those in the body modification industry on sterilization and prevention of blood-borne illnesses. As most other states have proven, there is no increased risk of having the two share a facility.

Disallowing the sale of any goods prevents the tattoo artist from carrying proper aftercare products and supplying them to the people who need them, increasing the risk for infection. I also know of no other industry where a business owner is prevented from selling items such as promotional t-shirts. It is very limiting to business making decisions.

Every other industry is allowed to maximize its potential. The South Carolina Tattoo Act severely limits the amount of money that a shop can make and puts restraints on business owners that other industries don't have.

Reading this law the only rational conclusion that anyone can come to is that it was put in place to discourage tattooing while at the same time keeping it legal. These kinds of stipulations do nothing but encourage artists to work out of their homes, in order to make more money, where proper sanitation and sterilization isn't always possible increasing the risk of infections and blood-borne illnesses.

Sources:

http://tattoojoy.com/tattoo_laws/united_states,south_carolina,1.htm#tattoo_act

http://history-nz.org/maori3.html

http://edu.ocac.gov.tw/local/tour_aboriginal/english/a/01.htm

http://www.vanishingtattoo.com/tattooed_indian_kings.htm

http://www.hlthedu.com/