A tattoo, tattooing and the business of tattooing are constitutionally protected speech, the Arizona Court of Appeals determined Thursday by ruling in favor of a couple that was denied a use permit to open a tattoo parlor in Mesa.

The court reversed a Maricopa County Superior Court decision in favor of the city and ordered the lower court to hold further proceedings.

Clint Bolick, of the Goldwater Institute who represented the Mesa couple, said the ruling is consistent with other recent rulings in which the courts have taken a broad view of what is protected speech.

It was also a victory for small businesses, Bolick said.

“This is the sort of victory that shows the little guy can beat city hall,” Bolick said.

Ryan and Laetitia Coleman wanted to open a tattoo parlor in the Dobson Ranch neighborhood in the city, which requires special use permits for businesses like theirs and pawn shops and body piercing salons.

The Colemans applied in July 2008 and were prepared to agree to a laundry list of terms such as informing police about gang tattoos, refusing to apply gang or racist tattoos and refusing to ink drunken patrons.

The City Council voted 6-1 against the business in March 2009 after a hearing in which opponents claimed the business would degrade property values in the neighborhood by attracting crime.

The Goldwater Institute filed suit on behalf of the Colemans, claiming the city violated their free speech rights by wrongly placing a “reasonable time, place, or manner restriction” on them.

The Colemans’ lawyers argued that Judge Larry Grant of Maricopa County Superior Court was wrong in dismissing their case because he failed to develop a factual record to assess the sufficiency of their complaint.

In deciding the appeal, the Court of Appeals first had to determine whether tattoos, applying tattoos and the business of tattooing are “pure speech” like writing and speaking or expressive or symbolic like voting, nude dancing or displaying an American flag with a peace sign on it.

Judge Ann Scott Timmer wrote for the unanimous 3-judge panel that the government has a freer hand in restricting expressive speech than pure speech.

“Consequently, restrictions on pure speech survive First Amendment scrutiny only if the government regulation is a reasonable ‘time, place, or manner restriction,’” Timmer wrote.

The court had differing case law to base its decision on and chose a 2010 case from the 9th U.S. Circuit of Appeals that held that tattooing and the business of tattooing are pure speech.

“The sole purpose of a tattoo is to communicate thoughts, emotions, or ideas as rendered by the tattoo artist,” Timmer wrote.

Timmer wrote that Grant shouldn’t have summarily dismissed the Colemans’ complaints because they had made a sufficient argument that the city violated their free speech, due process and equal protection rights by applying an unreasonable time, place or manner restriction on their business.