In In re Antonio C. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1029, the Fifth District rejected a First Amendment challenge to a condition prohibiting the minor from acquiring any new tattoos. "Assuming, without deciding, that tattoos and related skin markings constitute speech under the First Amendment , the probation condition does not unduly burden the minor's free speech rights. The United States Supreme Court has long held that while nonverbal expressive activity cannot be banned because of the ideas it expresses, it can be banned because of the action it entails. ... Here, the probation condition, which is content neutral, temporarily prohibits the minor from self-expression through permanent skin disfigurement. Its focus is the manner in which the message is conveyed, not the message itself. As such, it constitutes a reasonable manner restriction on the minor's free speech rights. " (83 Cal.App.4th at p. 1035.) Antonio C. held that "the state's compelling interest in the protection of children justifies the restriction on the minor's freedom of expression through body marking. As such, the condition does not unduly burden his free speech rights and was properly imposed." (Antonio C., supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at p. 1034.) Antonio C. went on to explain: "A minor is prohibited from receiving a permanent tattoo with or without parental consent. While we have found no statutory prohibition to a minor acquiring brands, burns, or voluntary scars, we note that inflicting brands, burns, or scars on another may constitute mayhem. And, branding, burning or voluntarily scarring oneself may constitute self-mutilation, which is an indication of emotional disturbance and presents a threat to the mutilator's health and safety. " (Antonio C., supra, at pp. 1034-1035.) In light of these factors, Antonio C. had no trouble holding that a juvenile court, as parens patriae, may prohibit a minor from acquiring new tattoos. (Id. at pp. 1034-1035.) The probation condition in Antonio C. also involved a prohibition on piercings, which the court held was unreasonable under the test of People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 486 124 Cal.Rptr. 905, 541 P.2d 545. It modified the condition of probation, dictating that it should read: " 'the minor shall not obtain any new tattoos, brands, burns, or voluntary scarrings; he shall not obtain any piercings with gang significance or not in compliance with Penal Code section 652, subdivision (a) ... .' " (Antonio C., supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at p. 1036.)