Telling neighbors ‘no’ would uphold free speech

Posted: Sunday, March 25, 2012 6:48 am | Updated: 6:33 pm, Sun Mar 25, 2012.

What began as a Mesa couples plans to open a tattoo business is now before the states highest court, which will hear arguments Tuesday over how much politics can influence the First Amendment right of freedom of speech.

Ryan and Letitia Coleman and the city of Mesa so far have each won once before judges, first the city at trial and then the couple at a state appeals court. So if youve ever wondered whether a tattoo, like other forms of artistic expression, is as protected by the First Amendment as anything uttered at a public meeting, then the Arizona Supreme Courts decision should mean something.

The justices will consider whether political terms such as appropriateness or compatibility, rather than quantifiable harm, can be used to justify turning down applications to open a business. And thats why Mesa appealed this case to the Supreme Court: City officials are afraid that the courts could take away the voter-pleasing power to deny a use of private property just because people living nearby dont like that use.

You may not plan to open a tattoo shop, but to anyone who plans to open a business that involves expression from a shop that sells beaded leather goods to one that proffers paintings to, heck, one that publishes in print or on the Internet what the city can use to justify turning you down should be of high interest.

In 2008, despite a favorable recommendation from city zoning officials, both Mesas Planning and Zoning Board and City Council rejected the Colemans application to open a tattoo shop in a strip mall on Dobson Ranch.

The protests of several upset and fearful neighbors won the day over the views of the staff and even of Mesa police, who according to reports published in the Tribune told the council they saw no evidence tattoo businesses pose any more of a public safety threat than other businesses in town.

But cops and city staff eligible to vote in Mesa dont number very many. At the polls each election day are all sorts of neighbors, upset and fearful about any number of things and ready to exact electoral vengeance on incumbents whose decisions displease them.

The 8-1 council majority counted noses that day and decided that the First Amendment can be taken down a bit, all in the name of whats appropriate for the neighborhood, and, of course, in getting re-elected.

Most free-speech cases are about speech many if not most of us dont like. Tattoos displease many people, although these days most people you ask are probably ambivalent about them.

See the original post:
Telling neighbors ‘no’ would uphold free speech