Lawsuit threatened over officer’s tattoo

Click to read on the Union-Bulletin

Share this page:

Commenter Account Access

  • Register for a commenter account
    (Not required to post comments, but will save you time if you're a regular commenter)
  • Log in using your existing account
  • Click here to edit your profile and change your password
  • All comments are subject to our Terms of Use

10 Comments

  1. Watchman for Zion

    Mikey has no business sticking his nose in where it does not belong or demanding someone remove or alter someone’s own personal tattoo whether he likes it or not. What’s next, Mikey demanding Christian police officers remove or alter Cross tattoos on their forearms or of the Messianic Jewish symbol on their forearm.

  2. Patriot 4 Christ

    This is a violation of the officers free speech covered under the First Amendment which courts have ruled as such. https://uclawreview.org/2016/05/18/tattoo-rights-inked-into-the-constitution-why-tattoos-are-protected-speech-under-the-first-amendment/
    https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/09/tattoos-free-speech.html#:~:text=Tattoos%20are%20free%20speech%20protected%20by%20Constitution%2C%20U.S.%20appeals%20court%20rules,-September%209%2C%202010&text=Tattoos%20and%20the%20art%20of,the%20city%20of%20Hermosa%20Beach.
    This is one battle that Mikey will lose. Just because you do not like what is tattooed on someone’s body, does not give you the right to order them to altar or have it removed.

  3. G

    Zion, police officers need to be impartial or appear to be impartial which is why you can’t have certain tattoos on their bodies. If you want to join the British police, you need to remove all tattoos off your body. That is the law. Don’t like it, don’t join the police then.

    Patriot 4 Christ. I guess it is okay to put tattoos on my body about what I think of the police and show it to the police.

  4. Patriot 4 Christ

    G,
    We are not in England, this is the United States and as far as I know police can have a myriad of tattoos they can put on their body. We have freedom of speech here in the United States which tattoos fall under according to court proceedings.
    What’s next restricting doctors, nurses, teachers from having tattoos??

  5. G

    Patriot 4 Christ. So what if this is the USA? Even in the USA, there are certain limits on freedom of speech like for example not yelling fire in a theater or threatening a politician like one Southern US senator did when Obama was going to come to his state. The senator stated that Obama might not come back alive if he comes to his state.

    “What’s next restricting doctors, nurses, teachers from having tattoos??”

    Irrelevant question.

  6. Patriot 4 Christ

    G
    Tattoos are a freedom of speech under the Constitution, the courts have stated that. Get used to it. His tattoos stay.

  7. G

    Patriot 4 Christ. Where is your court citation that Tattoos are freedom of speech? Again, what if I have tattoos about what I think of the police and show them to the police. You need to get used to the idea that the world has changed and people are no longer turn the cheek when it comes to someone who is displaying racial, sexual, and other offensive remarks and signs anymore. This is 2020 not 1920, 1820, or 1720. Get used to it.

  8. Tom O

    The linked LA Times article says “Tattoos and the art of tattooing are ‘forms of pure expression fully protected by the 1st Amendment,’ a federal appeals court ruled Thursday in a challenge to the ban on tattoo parlors in the city of Hermosa Beach. A three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the city to allow tattooing in at least some of its areas zoned for business, saying a total ban [on tattoo parlors in the entire city] was ‘facially unconstitutional.'”
    The article says NOTHING about free speech protection for a specific tattoo on a specific individual.

  9. G

    Tom O pointed out the ruling correctly so you lose again as usual Patriot 4 God, which I am never surprised or disappointed.

    The ruling was done by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal and was reported by the Los Angeles Times.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*