1y ago

US Justice Department sues over Tennessee law targeting HIV-positive people convicted of sex work

The U.S. Justice Department on Thursday sued the state of Tennessee over its decades-old felony aggravated prostitution law, arguing that it illegally imposes tougher criminal penalties on people who are HIV positive.

The lawsuit, filed in western Tennessee, follows an investigation completed in December by the Justice Department that warned that the statute violates the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case heads to court separately from another federal lawsuit filed in October by LGBTQ+ and civil rights advocates over the aggravated prostitution law.

Tennessee is the only state in the United States that imposes a lifetime registration as a “violent sex offender” if convicted of engaging in sex work while living with HIV, regardless of whether the person knew they could transmit the disease.

38 comments

So from my understanding, people with HIV who take treatment and have a low or undetectable level of the virus cannot spread it.
Add onto that safe sex practices such as using condoms.
So in theory it should be completely safe for them to engage in sex work.
Although I worry the US healthcare system is incapable of caring for its citizens effectively.
- That's a lot of trust to put on something so deadly.
  Here's an example. I work in a restaurant setting. If I have a virius that can kill people, and it can be transmitted by food that I touch, but I'm taking treatments and it's not transmittable, should I be hired to work in restaurants? If I am, should I inform every customer that what they eat may kill them? Or do we just take my word for it and hope that a) I'm honest, or if you don't trust that, that b) the doctors got it 100% correct and not 99.9999999%? Would you eat at that restaurant? Would you let your loved ones?
  
  99.9999999%
  That’s a lot of nines. A failure rate of one in one billion? I’d definitely roll those dice for some Five Guys.
  
  Considering that any customer might choke on the food or get an allergic reaction from something in the food and die, I'd say the chance of one of your customers dying is a higher percentage than you think.
  So yes, I would eat at a restaurant where there is such a low risk of dying because that means almost no one ever chokes or gets an allergic reaction and this must be a very special restaurant.
  
  Ahh you are talking about Mary Mallon aka Typhoid Mary
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon
  
  You know something interesting? The pathogens you can spread as a restaurant employee are SIGNIFICANTLY more transmissible than HIV. You can give someone hepatitis just by not washing your hands well after you poo. Your example doesn't work here because the danger of a restaurant is actually greater than of getting an STI.
  
  I see what you're trying to get at but I'd say your argument is disingenuous at best. As far as I know such an illness does not exist. More importantly you're using an industry that, in most locales, is highly regulated and has laws for food safety.
  What you do do is raise a great argument for why sex work should be legalized and regulated.
  
  Do you not trust that the restaurant is cleaning properly and using safe ingredients, that some nutcase hasn’t poisoned the food to murder people, etc?
  There’s already so much blind trust we have to place in society for things to function and not kill people, what’s one more.
- Although I worry the US healthcare system is incapable of caring for its citizens effectively.
  Oh don't worry. It's been incapable for some time now.
Oh wow, that's really interesting. On the one hand, I don't want sex workers spreading HIV. Reducing the transmission should be a priority from a public health perspective.
On the other hand, this is so obviously evil and ignorant, and doesn't display any nuance or evidence based practice. I can absolutely understand how under educated lawmakers pushed this through without a problem, but it creates more problems than it solves, and likely costs society more than it saves. It's a bad law financially, morally and ethically.
- Ok. I'm going to preface this with a very large statement: I AM NOT EVEN REMOTELY A CONSERVATIVE. I really fucking hate them. And because of my leanings, I'm inclined to be distrustful of any law that occurs only in a red state.
  Of course, there is a but...
  But, if you know you have HIV and you still engage in sex work, that seems like a pretty heinous crime. Granted, I'm sure there has been a lot of misuse of this law, as is common with conservatives and minority targeting legislature, but I think on the surface the law makes a good point. If you have a virus that can potentially cause another human a lifetime of suffering ultimately ending in their agonizing death, a virus which is predominately spread through sexual contact, and you make you living selling said sexual contact, then I think you have a moral obligation to stop for the sake of others. I fully support sex work. Go for it. Fuck your brains out and get paid to do it if that's what you like. But don't kill others. It's a pretty simple rule to follow.
  Now, I'm not saying that we need to have laws that target those with HIV, but we have to ensure that a deadly virus that can only be managed and not cured is not spread throughout the population. So, at surface level, I agree with the law, and honestly I think the punishment for sentencing someone to a life of brutal war against their own body should be a bit heavier than having to register on a list. These aren't offenders who found out after the fact that they had HIV, they knew full well and decided to spread it. That seems pretty "violent" to me. If anyone has a better way to handle this, I'm 100% open to it, but making this an issue of disability, sexuality, or gender identity is disingenuous to the real problem.
  
  if you know you have HIV and you still engage in sex work, that seems like a pretty heinous crime.
  Indeed. This shouldn't even be unpopular. It's literally already charged as aggravated assault in most jurisdictions. Knowingly spreading shit like HIV, HepC, and other things that will kill others already gets prosecuted. People were flipping their lids over licked ice cream. Knowingly spreading HIV when you're a prostitute is Typhoid Mary levels of fucked up.
  Taking it one step further and tacking on the sexual assault charge makes sense to me. Especially if you're in conservative territory.
  The key ingredient is simply that it's not equitable. Spreading debilitating and deadly diseases knowingly, no matter how terrible your position in life, deserves action and recompense to those you harmed and debilitated. Addition to a felony sexual offender registry seems apt.
  
  You:
  These aren't offenders who found out after the fact that they had HIV, they knew full well and decided to spread it.
  The article, emphasis mine:
  Tennessee is the only state in the United States that imposes a lifetime registration as a “violent sex offender” if convicted of engaging in sex work while living with HIV, regardless of whether the person knew they could transmit the disease.
  This is a status offense; there is no requirement in status offenses that the perp has any knowledge of their status. The most famous example I can think of of a status offense is BAC limits on drivers: the prosecutor simply doesn't have to prove in court you knew your BAC was too high to drive.
- You know what fixes this problem? Be like more advanced parts of the world and stop criminalizing sex. It's pretty simple. All these issues evaporate once you have a safe place/system.
- Undetectable = Untransmissible
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — The U.S. Justice Department on Thursday sued the state of Tennessee over its decades-old felony aggravated prostitution law, arguing that it illegally imposes tougher criminal penalties on people who are HIV positive.
Remember to pay your taxes soon folks, they go to a great cause!
- Can't tell if that is anti-government, anti-tax, or just ignorant about the fact that people with HIV have rights just like you do.

38 comments