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.