First Amendment Archives - Page 6 of 7

USA: Supreme Court to decide on Westboro funeral protests

The Supreme Court is to decide next week whether members of Westboro Baptist Church have the constitutional right to picket military funerals. Al Snyder, the father of a US marine whose funeral was accompanied by the protesters’ anti-gay and anti-Catholic demonstrations is seeking damages for emotional distress. The fundamentalist church, which has said that it plans to protest outside the court, will argue on 6 October that its actions are protected under the First Amendment. Snyder says the decision isn’t a free speech issue but a “case of harrassment“.

United States: Senate committee approves libel tourism legislation

Yesterday (13 July), the Senate Judiciary Committee approved legislation to protect US journalists and publishers from “libel tourism”. The SPEECH (Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage) Act will now go before the full senate. The impetus for the bill follows a number of law suits instigated against American writers in foreign courts in order to exploit their weak libel laws. For example, New York based academic Rachel Ehrenfeld was sued in London despite only 23 copies of her book, on the financing of terrorism, being sold in the UK. If passed, the proposal will prevent federal courts from recognising foreign libel ruling that are inconsistent with the First Amendment and will allow affected persons to apply for a declaratory judgement confirming that verdicts against them are non-enforceable. The bill, co-sponsored by Democrat Patrick Leahy and Republican Jeff Sessions, is believed to have a high prospect of being enacted because of its broad cross-party support.

Tattooists for free expression!

Is a ban on a tattoo parlour opening in California’s Hermosa Beach a form of censorship? Johnny Anderson, who runs “Yer Cheat’n Heart” in Gardena, thinks so. He’s gone to court in Los Angeles claiming that a local zoning law that prevents him from free expression via the medium of his customers’ bodies, and so is contrary to the First Amendment.

Legal discussion of whether tattoos are protected speech and whether the zoning law is illegal is likely to drag on. Hermosa Beach seems to have an effective indirect ban on tattoo-making — at least in a shop. But from across the water this doesn’t look like a serious infringement of free expression for the individual concerned. Tattoos for many people — makers and wearers alike – can be a powerful statement of belief. I’m always amazed when I see someone ready to announce “ACAB” across their knuckles (“All Coppers Are Bastards”), for example. It would be interesting too, to know, whether UK libel laws would treat tattooing as a form of publication — what would have happened if Simon Singh had tattooed his thoughts about chiropractors across his forehead, for example?

But in the US example, Anderson can easily tattoo from his shop in Gardena. And the publicity surrounding this case will probably guarantee him a steady flow of human canvases. He’s not being censored since his works still gets to be seen. Presumably the people he’s tattooed are free to remove their shirts and display his work in Hermosa Beach. He’s just limited in where he locates his studio. And that isn’t quite the same thing as censorship, as any artist who has been censored would be able to explain to him. Surely the important issue should be whether or not the individual gets to express him or herself, not the precise geographical location of where the creative act takes place.