MISSOURI – Timberland High School Principal Winston Rogers is refusing to give the editors of the student newspaper an explanation for why he required replacement of a story in the second issue of their paper that included ads and an article about tattoos.

The original page included one story and an editorial, the story investigating the health risks associated with getting tattoos and the editorial discussing the meaning of tattoos. The students also obtained two tattoo parlor ads they wanted to publish. The principal initially prior reviewed and flagged all four elements for changes. Rogers requested that the students add quotes that portrayed the “conservative” side of the first article � specifically from employers who are turned off by interviewees with tattoos. Though the students made the required changes, ultimately only the ads were permitted to print. The Wolf’s Howl was distributed Oct. 9 with a final page that was pulled together with photos from the school’s Homecoming at the last minute to avoid blank space.

“We went down Wednesday afternoon to talk to principal and he said he wasn’t concerned about the articles, he just wanted to make sure we showed the other side of the story,” said Nikki McGee, co-editor of The Wolf’s Howl. “Thursday was our layout night, and we thought we were ready to go.”

On Friday morning, Rogers reviewed the issue with his original edits included and decided the final page needed to be pulled, without providing any explanation.

“He asked us to just trust him, and that it was being pulled because of the principal’s discretion,’” McGee said.

Rogers did not respond to calls by press time.

Last school year administrators at Timberland objected to students’ decision to accept a church’s ad with an anti-abortion message. After the ad initially appeared, administrators demanded that the students pull the ad from future editions and refund the church’s payment. McGee said since last year’s controversy, Rogers has required that he review each issue of the paper before it is distributed. However, the standard for high school publications set by the Supreme Court decision in Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier does require school officials show they have reasonable justification for censoring an article, according to Mike Hiestand, legal consultant for the Student Press Law Center.

“A huge mistake that many school officials make is that they believe Hazelwood gives them an unlimited license to censor,” Hiestand said. “Hazelwood did lower the bar … but it did not eliminate that bar. The problem that we have here is that [Rogers] has not provided any sort of justification for his censorship, and that’s unlawful.”

The Hazelwood standard does not require school officials to provide much information, but they have to provide at least some, Hiestand said.

Hiestand said that hopefully Rogers will realize he needs to provide the students with an explanation. McGee is worried because she believes hot topics like tattooing are what pique students’ interests.

“Controversial topics really should not be avoided in the high school paper; especially controversial topics with reasonable coverage,” McGee said. “I think it’s extremely unfair with this tattoo subject … all of our surrounding schools are covering it, and it’s such a big trend of 2009, especially in regards to teens.”

Source : Student Press Law Center

TEXAS – The story of Cameron Todd Willingham (via Digby) ought to be read by everyone. Willingham seems to have been a kind of Texan dumbass, an uneducated, wife-beating piece of work, but he was also the father of three children, who he, by all accounts, loved. Those kids died in a house fire. Forensic ‘experts’ declared the fire an arson, Willingham was arrested, tried, and convicted of murder, and was executed.

Only problem: he didn’t do it. The fire experts were good ol’ boys who were operating on folklore and fairy tales about how fires propagated; real experts have looked at the scene and since declared that it was an accidental fire. Nobody killed those little girls, but their father was killed for their deaths.

That’s not the most disturbing part of the story to me. You have to watch these videos of Judge John Jackson (he was prosecutor in the case, and is now a judge). He openly admits that the evidence for arson was weak, and that he looked at the circumstances to determine Willingham’s guilt. Those circumstances? Willingham was a low-class ruffian with tattoos of skulls who like heavy metal music. Therefore, he was probably a satanist. Therefore, he probably killed his children.

I’m not joking. That was the basis for this smug cracker’s determination of guilt, that led directly to his execution. Why not just criminalize tattoos and Metallica? It would make it easy to round up the riff-raff and exterminate them.

The state of Texas murdered an innocent man, and we can see the whole chain of incompetence, bigotry, and cowardice that led to the tragedy, from this ass of a prosecutor to Governor Perry, who refused to heed the evidence of malfeasance. Why aren’t all of them being impeached or fired, and facing criminal charges in a court of law? Is it because they don’t have any tattoos and listen to patriotic tripe from Lee Greenwood, Brooks & Dunn, and Tim McGraw?

End the death penalty everywhere. Drum the red-necked blundering boobs out of office, at the very least.

Source : Pharyngula

OKLAHOMA CITY, OK – An Oklahoma man says his dream of being a police officer is being thwarted by his appearance. He says he’s qualified, can pass the background check and is ready to go, but claims he is denied employment because of his visible tattoos.

The marks can get a candidate booted even before they really apply for the job. Many employers, including some police departments, consider them unprofessional and won’t even consider a candidate if they have one.

“They all kind of have different meanings. The one on my forearm here is kind of a memorial to two of my friends who got killed in Iraq,” Jesse Campbell said. “And the Koi fish is traditional Japanese for hope, and this one I just got because I thought it looked cool.”

They seemed like good ideas at the time, but now 25 year old Jesse Campbell says these marks of ink are now giving him marks of disapproval.

He says he’s been denied a job as a police officer at the Oklahoma City Police Department because of them, even though he’s fought overseas for our country – visible tattoos and all.

“It didn’t disqualify be from going to Iraq, and they don’t inhibit my ability to do anything other than what someone perceives me to be,” he said.

And it is about perception. The police department came up with the policy that bans visible tattoos after receiving complaints from citizens against officers who did have them.

“The complaints have started coming in only within the last several years prior to the chief beginning to look at that policy,” Captain Steve McCool said. “This is something new in the police department in getting those types of complaints because officers of going out and getting visible tattoos.”

Those who already have them are grandfathered in but must cover them with clothing, make-up or patches. New applicants can’t have tattoos at all – a practice Campbell says is unfair.

“Instead of asking a person they form a judgment just based on what they see,” Campbell said.

Most metro police departments also have the same policy – no visible tattoos and if a current officer does have them they must be completely covered.

Source : KFOR

PENNSYLVANIA – A northeastern Pennsylvania man claims his rights were violated when he was not hired as a liquor agent with the state police because he would not have his arm tattoo removed.

Ronald Scavone sued the department Friday, asking a federal judge to decide whether the policy is constitutional and if his treatment as a job applicant violated his rights of free speech, due process and equal protection. He is seeking appointment to the job, damages and legal costs.

“If you talk to any medical professional, they’ll tell you, you can’t get a tattoo 100 percent removed,” said his Pittston lawyer, Cindy Pollick. “It’s extremely painful and there’s no guarantee that you’ll have it 100 percent gone.”

The lawsuit does not specify the nature of the upper arm tattoo, Scavone did not return a phone message seeking comment, and Pollick would not describe it in any detail.

“It’s not an offensive tattoo or inappropriate,” Pollick said. “It has no offensiveness at all associated with it.”

The state police’s Web site warns Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement applicants that their tattoos are subject to review by the Tattoo and Replica Review Committee, which can insist they be removed before a job will be offered.

State police spokeswoman Lt. Myra Taylor declined comment on the matter because it involves a pending lawsuit.

The lawsuit seeks to determine whether “the government can require you to physically alter your body in exchange for employment,” and claims the policy had no legitimate or rational reason to infringe on Scavone’s “freedom of choice in personal matters.”

Scavone, a resident of Luzerne County, said he had passed the background check for the job when he was told the tattoo must be removed before he would be hired. He was rejected for the job in June 2008 and currently works in law enforcement, his lawyer said.

Pollick said her legal research found a Connecticut case in which a court upheld a policy that required tattoos to be covered up.

“It appears the courts have not addressed policies that require the removing of tattoos, which involves an intrusion into one’s physical appearance and permanently alters the way someone looks,” according to the lawsuit.

The state police policy for troopers bans tattoos that are visible when officers are wearing short-sleeved summer uniforms, and Scavone said he was treated differently than tattooed state police employees.

“Everybody gets their own tattoo for their own reason, and often it’s when you’re 18, you’re young,” Pollick said. “Who would think, when you’re age 30-something, it’s going to affect what you want to do with your life.”

She said Scavone talked about removal with two plastic surgeons, who told him the procedure would be costly, painful and not necessarily entirely effective.

Source : Times Leader

HENDERSON, KY – School officials in a western Kentucky district have started enforcing an expanded dress code by asking some students to hide their tattoos or piercings.

The Gleaner of Henderson reports that some students in the Henderson County district were asked to wear bandages, long-sleeve shirts or gauze to hide tattoos or piercings. The dress code policy includes a requirement to hide visible tattoos as well as piercings in places other than the ears.

The newspaper reports that school officials also offered duct tape to help students cover up holes in tattered clothing, which is also forbidden under the dress code.

Henderson County High School Principal Kim Marshall told the newspaper that students out of compliance with the dress code were told to either go home and change or to hide the violation.

Source : The Associated Press

DALLAS, TX – The next time you see a Dallas police officer wearing a long-sleeved shirt when it’s hotter than a furnace outside, it may be because he or she is hiding something.

The department is planning to require police officers to cover up their tattoos, even if it means wearing makeup or a skin-colored patch over a hard-to-obscure place such as the neck or wrist.

“A lot of officers are coming in with tattoos,” said Lt. Andrew Harvey, a police spokesman.

“It’s more normal now than it ever has been,” he said but added that the department wants officers “to display a more professional image.”

The department’s personnel division is drawing up the official policy. It could go into effect as soon as this summer.

The old rules are silent on tattoos and state only that employees must “present a neutral and uniform image to effectively relate to all segments of the population they serve.”

The department largely left it up to the individual commander to decide whether an officer needed to cover tattoos.

A number of other cities also require officers to cover tattoos, including Los Angeles, Arlington and Houston, though they typically exempt officers working undercover. “This is in stride with what other cities are doing,” Harvey said.

Officer Nick Novello has four tattoos on his arms, including an American Indian on his right forearm that was there when he was hired by the city in 1982. He said he believes the department should consider grandfathering in current officers and thinks it’s a mistake to have an across-the-board policy.

“If I got hired in 1982 and had that tattoo on my forearm, how can you expect me to cover my tattoo up in 2009?” Novello asked. “If you have to cover up your arms, they’re going to have a lot of problems staying hydrated. You put a guy in long sleeves and he’s not going out of the car unless it’s an absolute emergency” during the hot summer months.

Novello, who also has an eagle bursting out of an American flag on his left arm, said he can understand requiring officers to cover up tattoos if they are offensive in some way.

“In culture at large, tattoos are extremely prevalent,” he said. “We’re not divorced from society at large.”

Another officer, who asked that his name to be published because he feared retaliation, said he’s worn a long-sleeved uniform for years because his tattoos cover his entire arms. But he said a portion of the tattoos still peeks out on his left hand.

“Are they going to make me wear gloves or makeup?” he said.

He suggested that a more reasonable approach would be to require officers to cover tattoos if they cover a certain percentage of the body part or if the tattoos are larger than a specified size.

“What are you going to do with that guy who is 300 pounds, and you put him in long sleeves in the heat of summer, and he drops out on you?” the officer said. “There’s other alternatives than saying everybody with tattoos has to cover it.”

Source : Dallas News

TEMPE, AZ – A Maricopa County Superior Court judge ruled Thursday in favor of a Gilbert couple’s right to open a tattoo studio in Tempe.

Judge Robert Oberbillig said that the Tempe City Council’s decision in 2007 to revoke Tom and Elizabeth Preston’s business-use permit was “arbitrary and capricious.”

The council “lacked credible evidence” to revoke the permit, he wrote in a five-page opinion.

Oberbillig reinstated the Prestons’ permit and denied Tempe’s claim that the city is immune to being sued for damages.

The ruling is a win for small-business owners and “absolute jubilation” for the Prestons, who invested nearly $30,000 to open the business in 2007, said Clint Bolick, an attorney with the Goldwater Institute, a conservative think tank that represented the Prestons.

The Prestons plan to sue to recoup their financial investment, he said.

“Right now everybody’s all super-excited,” Tom Preston said. “We’re still kind of scared because of the appeals process. (But) we’ll wait the 30 days and hopefully they won’t appeal and we’ll open our business.”

The council issued a statement Thursday stating that it is reviewing the judge’s ruling with attorneys to decide whether to appeal.

The Prestons filed a lawsuit in fall 2007 when the council revoked their permit after neighbors complained that the tattoo parlor would lower their property values.

Tom said he thinks the Tempe council was swayed by prejudices about people with tattoos.

On Thursday, the council issued a statement reiterating that “any notion that the Tempe City Council is biased against tattoo shops is false.”

There are at least 12 tattoo studios in Tempe.

Oberbillig’s ruling Thursday comes after Tempe asked him to reconsider his May decision to reinstate the permit based on his opinion that the council had improperly revoked a permit for a business the Prestons had a vested interest in.

Source : The Arizona Republic

TEMPE, AZ – Tattoos cover most of Tom Preston’s forearm and curl around his neck.

He is used to people judging him by the colored etchings on his skin.

But as a taxpayer and business owner, he thought City Hall would be different.

“You expect (elected officials) to be completely unbiased,” he said after the latest episode in his two-year battle to open a tattoo and body-piercing studio in Tempe.

Preston and his wife, Elizabeth, left Maricopa County Superior Court this week wondering how a few neighbors could sway Tempe City Council from allowing them to open a legal business.

The legal battle began in fall 2007 when the Prestons sued Tempe for the right to open their studio after the city revoked their business permit.

While Tempe says it was protecting neighbors’ rights, Preston thinks the decision was based on tattoo stereotypes.

“Policemen, teachers, firefighters, soldiers . . . have tattoos nowadays,” Preston said. “This all just seems like . . . prejudice.”

The case has drawn the attention of the conservative, pro-business Goldwater Institute, which is defending the Prestons, and cities and businesses are watching to see who will win a struggle between free enterprise and a city’s right to manage development.

The Appeal

In 2007, the Prestons decided to expand their business. For about 13 years they had success with Virtual Reality tattoo studio in Mesa.

A strip mall near McKellips and Scottsdale roads in north Tempe seemed like the perfect spot for Body Accents Tattoo and Piercing Studio. In July 2007, a hearing officer granted the Prestons a use permit.

But members of the North Tempe Neighborhood Association objected and appealed to Tempe’s Development Review Commission and then to the City Council.

Neighbors said the tattoo parlor would lower property values and stymie revitalization attempts by adding to a cluster of adult-oriented businesses in the strip mall. The center already had a bail-bond business, a liquor store and a lingerie shop.

Neighbors cited a New York study detailing the negative impact of adult-oriented businesses.

“It’s going to look like another skid row if we let this kind of business come in. I’m ashamed,” said Nancy Hickman, who owns a plumbing business next to the proposed studio. “It’s going to look like Van Buren (Street) pretty soon.”

The Prestons argued they had a reputable business and said their Mesa studio had no police complaints in 13 years.

But Mayor Hugh Hallman said the “perception” of the tattoo business could hurt the neighborhood. The council unanimously agreed.

Tempe officials have stressed that they are not discriminating against the Prestons and have pointed out that there are at least 12 tattoo studios in the city.

The Legal Battle

After Tempe revoked the Prestons’ permit, the city enacted an anti-clustering ordinance, limiting the distance between adult-oriented businesses. Mesa, Peoria and Gilbert have similar ordinances.

In May, Judge Robert Oberbillig ruled that Tempe improperly revoked the permit, ordering the council to review whether there is “sufficient evidence of good cause and public necessity” to revoke the permit.

Tempe filed a motion asking the judge to reconsider, and he complied.

Arguing Monday for the Prestons, Goldwater Institute attorney Clint Bolick said the couple had a legitimate business, invested nearly $30,000 to open it and had followed Tempe’s rules.

But Catherine Bowman, a Tempe attorney, said neighbors have the right to appeal a permit to the council. Permits are conditional, and the code warns that pending appeals, any investments business owners make are “at their own risk,” she said.

Oberbillig said from the bench that he was persuaded by Tempe’s argument but he questioned the council’s fairness. “There has to be some credible evidence for the city to base its decision. It’s (got to be) more than somebody’s opinion whether somebody who has a tattoo is offensive to them,” he said.

He said the case is a “close call” and is expected to rule this week.

Outside the courtroom, Bolick pointed out that the retail space where the studio would have opened has remained vacant for two years.

“They’d rather have an empty store than a legitimate business,” he said.

Darlene Justus of the North Tempe Neighborhood Association said members have not changed their position. “We’ve really gotten a bad rap on this,” she said, “We have the legal right to fight a business we think could hurt our neighborhood. It’s not about people with tattoos. My grandson has a tattoo. It’s about not wanting another adult-oriented business in the neighborhood.”

Both sides said they would consider appeals if they lose.

Source : The Arizona Republic

BATTENDORF, IA – Don Keller, owner of K & K Hardware, a downtown Bettendorf fixture for 69 years, makes no bones about why he does not want a nearby parcel at 1737 Grant St. rezoned to allow a new business to come to town.

“Mention tattoo parlor and most Bettendorf residents have a negative reaction,” Keller wrote in a letter to City Administrator Decker Ploehn. “They don’t want one in their ‘revitalized’ downtown, within eyesight of the beautiful new Waterfront Convention Center, and they certainly don’t want to see one as they go shopping.”

Joe VenHorst, owner of the building at 1737 Grant St., has been in discussions with Ron O’Tool, who operates O’Tool Design in Rock Island, about leasing the building for a tattoo parlor and silk screen shop. O’Tool said his current tattoo parlor in Rock Island has seen a booming business and he’s interested in opening a second location.

However, tattoo parlors are not listed as a permitted use in any of Bettendorf’s zoning classifications, Community Development Director Bill Connors said, and the city currently does not have any such businesses. The proposed rezoning would change the site from community shopping district (C2) to general business district (C3).

“Our thoughts were it fits best in C3,” Connors said.

So, Ven Horst applied for a zoning change. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve his request, but surrounding businesses mobilized against the change. They wrote the city council letters asking them not to approve it and submitted a petition with the signatures of 13 people opposing the change.

Several of them showed up Tuesday during an unusually long and spirited council meeting. The council held a public hearing on the issue, but put off voting on it.

City Attorney Greg Jager said a provision in city and state codes says that if 20 percent of property owners on one side of a parcel oppose a zoning change, it must be approved by a three-fourths majority of council — six of the seven votes — instead of a simple majority.

The council postponed the vote until at least June 16, when all council members are expected to be present. If the full council is not there at that time, the vote could be postponed again, Jager said.

On Tuesday, a furious Ven Horst chided city officials for giving him what he believes is the run-around. “I think I lost a tenant, and it’s not easy to get a tenant right now,” Ven Horst said. “You ran him out. I don’t think you did him right.”

On Wednesday, O’Tool said he still is interested in the Bettendorf location, but also believes city officials are stalling him. “They’re planning on spending all of this money in downtown Bettendorf and they don’t want a tattoo parlor down there. That’s the bottom line.”

Connors said Ven Horst and O’Tool have been treated the same as any other applicant.

On Tuesday, the council adopted the downtown streetscape master plan, an ambitious blueprint for revitalizing its aging business district. The plan calls for a litany of expensive public improvements, which could cost as much as $942,500 per block in some areas for landscaping, colored concrete, decorative light posts and more.

Several business owners said they are not so much opposed to a tattoo parlor as they are concerned about the property being rezoned for a more intense use than a retail shop.

“We want this to be a nice, family-oriented type of block,” said Debbie Trumbo, owner of Sports Fans Pizza, located next door to the parcel. She worries that the rezoning would pave the way for a more intense use, such as a car dealer, lumber yard, car wash or equipment rental shop. Several parcels in downtown Bettendorf, including some near Ven Horst’s property, already are zoned C3.

Ven Horst said it’s premature to assume that he wants the zoning change so he can lease his building to O’Tool. He said he wants the change so he can keep his options open and make renting the space easier.

Paul Lensmeyer, president and chief executive officer of Ascentra Credit Union, located across the street from the parcel, said the council needs to think ahead. “The revitalization of downtown Bettendorf will take a number of years, but each step must be done with what we envision the final product to look like. Decisions made now will have long-term implications on future development.”

Alderman Joe Douglas, 2nd Ward, said he hasn’t made up his mind about the zoning change, but he’s inclined to vote against it. “We have made major investments in our downtown, changing our hopes and visions. I would really like to have shops and retail of a normal nature down there if at all possible, but I assure you I’m not against it just because it’s a tattoo parlor.”

Alderman Patricia Malinee, 4th Ward, also said she hasn’t made a decision. “The fact the neighbors are opposed to it carries some weight with me. I need to think about it more because I need to figure out how all of the pieces of downtown, which are zoned many different ways, are going to fit together as we do this improvement of downtown.”

In the meantime, O’Tool said he’s hurt by the way he has been received in Bettendorf. “I support K & K Hardware. I support Sports Fans Pizza. These are businesses I patronize, and they’re against me.”

Gil Cepeda, owner of Trattoria Tiramisu, located next to the parcel, said he doesn’t think his business would be negatively impacted by a tattoo parlor. “When you’re trying to open a business and find a place, you should be able to do what you want to do,” he said, smiling, as he turned over his arm to reveal a tattoo.

Source : Quad-City Times

TEMPE, AZ – A judge has ruled the Tempe City Council acted unlawfully when it revoked a permit for a tattoo studio at a strip mall.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Robert Oberbillig said Wednesday that the council must reconsider the matter.

The Goldwater Institute went to court on behalf of Tom and Elizabeth Preston after the City Council revoked the use permit for their planned studio on Aug. 28, 2007.

The permit had been approved by a city hearing examiner and the city’s Development Review Commission, but Mayor Hugh Hallman told the council that there was a “perception” the tattoo studio would contribute to neighborhood deterioration. The council then revoked the permit for the Body Accents studio at 1524 N. Scottsdale Road.

The Prestons said they had signed a five-year lease and invested between $25,000 and $30,000 getting ready to operate the studio. They said they own and operate a studio in Mesa called Virtual Reality, which has not received a single complaint in more than 15 years of operating.

In his ruling, Oberbillig said, “Even the city’s own ordinances and rules reflect that this permit is valid.” He said the council could revoke the permit only on a showing of “good cause or public necessity.”

Clint Bolick, director of the Goldwater Institute’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation, said, “The council’s action was a travesty. The Prestons followed the city’s rules and made a significant investment, only to be sent packing by the City Council on the basis of crude, outdated stereotypes.”

Bolick added, “This ruling is a victory for the rule of law. If the city can lawfully treat the Prestons this way, then every small business owner in Arizona is at risk of arbitrary government action.”

Source : KTAR