HIV-Positive Sex Workers No Longer Required To Register As Violent Sex Offenders In Tennessee
Selling sex while HIV-positive will still be a felony.

Since 2010, HIV-positive sex workers in Tennessee have been required to register for life on the state's sex offender registry. However, under a lawsuit settlement released last week, Tennessee officials have agreed to reverse course and begin notifying affected individuals that they can now be removed from the registry.
In 1991, Tennessee passed an "aggravated prostitution" law, making it a felony to sell sex while being knowingly HIV-positive. In 1995, when the state introduced a sex offender registry, those convicted of aggravated prostitution were forced to register. However, things got worse in 2010, when the crime was reclassified as a "violent sexual offense," meaning that those convicted would face lifetime registration.
Last year, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit against the state of Tennessee, arguing that the law unfairly targeted HIV-positive individuals, who are classified as having a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
"Unlike Prostitution, which is a misdemeanor, Aggravated Prostitution is a felony that requires lifetime registration as a 'violent sex offender,'" the complaint states. "This drastic difference in treatment turns solely on HIV status and is so unmoored from medical facts as to punish sexual encounters that pose no risk of HIV transmission."
Being placed on a sex offender registry makes finding employment and housing incredibly difficult. Even though "aggravated prostitution" refers to consensual sex between adults, affected registrants are barred from working or living within 1,000 feet of a school, playground, or park, in addition to other onerous restrictions.
"There are many other chronic and manageable infectious conditions prevalent in Tennessee, but none are subject to such draconian and counterproductive punishment," the complaint states. "That individuals living with HIV are treated so differently can only be understood as a remnant of the profoundly prejudiced early response to the AIDS epidemic."
In February, Tennessee legislators voted to remove aggravated prostitution from the state's definition of "sexual offense" or "violent sexual offense," and allow affected individuals to apply for removal. That change went into effect at the start of this month. However, as part of a lawsuit settlement reached last week, Tennessee officials will take an additional step: They will send letters informing individuals placed on the registry for HIV-positive sex work that they can now request to have their names removed.
Unfortunately, neither the settlement nor the legislature's changes to Tennesee law remove aggravated prostitution as a crime altogether.
"This settlement is one step towards remedying those harms by addressing the sex offender registration," attorneys from the ACLU and the Transgender Law Center in a statement said in a statement obtained by the Associated Press. "However, as aggravated prostitution remains a felony, our legal team will continue to fight to overturn this statute and ensure that no one in Tennessee is criminalized based on their health status."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
attorneys from the ACLU and the Transgender Law Center
The fuck?!!
the Transgender Law Center
Lol
Next up, The Southern Poverty Transgender Law Center.
The fuck?!!
Like 8 headspins deep.
“FUCK HARM REDUCTION! LESS TESTING! LESS TRANSPARENCY IN CONTACT TRACING FOR INCURABLE DISEASES!”
I’m all for reforming or eliminating sex offender registries and legalizing (or deregulating, w/e) sex work and against subsidizing public health and against public-private “computer service provider” partnerships but if someone invented a Tinder+ app that preferentially matched HIV+ patients with each other and HIV- patients with each other I’d have a hard time saying Congress shouldn’t offer that shit some Good Samaritan protection.
This is actually a feature that exists in some applications. Famously, Grinder has an HIV search selection.
Yeah, I admit to not being a user and didn't assume my idea to be completely novel.
I would note that it is interesting that, in all the backpage.com S230. back-and-forth this never gets brought up or, if it does, it's indecipherably lumped in with "The app helps keep workers safe from murderous or otherwise dangerous Johns."
But, saying it all "out loud" I have a (couple of) suspicion(s) why the topic isn't broached publicly.
Don't you mean the can't fuck?
Don't worry. They only identify as lawyers.
But their liability insurance will still cover all medical expenses for anyone they infect, right?
No, but the really virulently contagious ones will offer a courtesy discount.
Thats a killer ruling dude!
Good grief. If someone has a habit of running around stabbing people, even if he doesn't kill them, he goes to jail for a long long time. Why is infecting people with HIV any different?
See below. This law went far, far beyond 'acts that cause infection'.
That said, Alec Baldwin should've gone to trial and, for all the times I've handed women money or received money from them at some point in an evening where sex took place, neither I nor they have been convicted of felony prostitution.
And again, it's not the going to jail for a long time that is being contested or celebrated here. It's the exceedingly more libertarian "Just hang a sign that says 'I tend to stab people.' on them and make sure they wear it." solution whose demise is being celebrated.
Like Raven. Tattoo "Poor Impulse Control" on his forehead and be done with it.
What a brave new world
Jesus H Christ. Am I missing something with this? I’ve read the article twice. So people with HIV can turn tricks now?
Can someone speak jive and break this down for me?
Not all sex acts carry a risk of HIV transmission.
For an obvious example, a hand-job while wearing a nitrile glove and the john wearing a condom has pretty much zero chance of transmitting any disease yet, if done for money, would still be prostitution and, if done by someone HIV-positive, would trigger this ‘aggravated prostitution’ definition.
Even vaginal sex with an HIV-positive person is basically safe if you’re wearing a condom properly. (Nothing is perfectly safe but you’d be more likely to die on the drive there than from the sex act.) This is even more true if the HIV-positive person is under treatment such as PrEP or ART.
Acknowledging that the CDC's credibility has been damaged recently, this snippet is pretty reliable.
For an obvious example, a hand-job while wearing a nitrile glove and the john wearing a condom has pretty much zero chance of transmitting any disease yet,
Stop it! You're getting me all turned on!!!11!!
Even vaginal sex with an HIV-positive person is basically safe if you’re wearing a condom properly.
"Yes, I'm HIV positive, just make sure your condom is on right and pray it doesn't break."
"I'm all good here."
To be fair, the risk to a man through one time, heterosexual penetration is close to zero.
That said, if you're expecting the condom to be the only thing stopping you from getting an STD, well, you probably shouldn't be having sex with that person no matter what. Or am I missing something here?
Seems like the gay bottom guys are the ones at risk so why are we talking about vaginas and hand jobs?
“Wait. Wait. Wait… shouldn’t we be doing this through a gloryhole to prevent the spread of COVID? You haven’t had monkeypox in the last two wee… eh, nevermind.”
Better make that a full body prophylactic. Like John Kerry wore in his brilliantly staged campaign photo.
That's as may be, although the breakage / leakage rates I've seen for condoms as birth control don't match your claims.
And street hookers, condoms, nitrile gloves? That's no world I've heard of.
a hand-job while wearing a nitrile glove and the john wearing a condom has pretty much zero chance of transmitting any disease yet, if done for money, would still be prostitution
That sounds like a popular and realistic option.
Dear Penthouse…..
There's a reason it mostly affected gay men, anal sex transmitted it a lot more than vaginal
"That individuals living with HIV are treated so differently can only be understood as a remnant of the profoundly prejudiced early response to the AIDS epidemic."
Let's not forget, the left's great hero, Saint Fauci, was the guy who promoted this hysteria. He bookended his career with massive, societally detrimental failures.
He belongs in prison.
Anyone under 50 might not remember people freaking about using a public toilet and water fountains being shut off in schools.
Seriously. It was that bad, long after epidemiology told us AIDS was very much isolated to certain communities. By the time HIV was isolated... well, it took until only a few years ago before the CDC finally admitted that the heterosexual AIDS epidemic they predicted never happened.
Fuck these people. Especially Fauci.
I think "under 45" or "under 40" might be more accurate. I remember that, and have not yet attained 50. And recall it going on for a while.
Wait...we're presumably talking about gay hookers giving people AIDS and the problem is stigmatizing their behavior?!
We can quibble over whether the sex offender registry and everything that entails is proper. I'm just not very sympathetic towards people spreading an Incurable disease through sex. That seems like more of a sex crime than guys ending up on the list after an indecent exposure charge for pissing on a bush.
Shouldn't they be allowed to service clients who are also HIV positive?
Stop asking for nuance, we serve knee-jerk reactions and outrage here.
What nuance?
Disclosing the Johns' HIV status in court with the best of intentions? What could possibly go wrong?
Turns out that the 14A is somewhere between a suicide pact and murder-suicide policy where everyone winds up equally dead.
How many of them are there relative to the people unknowingly sticking their dick in a minefield?
Most drink drivers don't hurt anyone - we're still fine making it illegal.
Who's this "we", statist?
Drink driver? UK?
I oppose sex offender registries and I support legalising prostitution or sex work if you prefer. But I wouldn't choose this hill to die on.
I think that's the best summary of my thoughts
It's an example that makes you so unsympathetic that you question your principles. It's like using the case of someone raping, murdering and eating children on video with 5 in person witnesses as an argument against the death penalty.
Sometimes it's worth recognizing that a person's actions are so damaging that they deserve excessively harsh repercussions to prevent more victims
individuals living with HIV are treated so differently can only be understood
You open borders assfuckers were going to issue me a passport because I’m unvaccinated and you’re going to try and blackmail me with sympathy over HIV, homosexuals, sex workers, etc.?
The hypocrisy is the point. They just want to grind your face in it a little harder, year after year.
We're always defending the classiest, most redeeming folks here at Reason. HIV+ prostitutes, career criminals, LGBT pedos, drug-addled degenerates, filthy insane vagrants - it's like, when you put it all together and see the kind of dystopian paradise that Reason's Marxistarians seems to envision...
Honestly, if you read Reason, it's not a surprise so many people are not down with libertarianism.
HIV might not be the killer it was, but it's still a very nasty disease and requires medication (which ain't that cheap).
Now granted, transmission rates for non-anal sex aren't very high, and you shouldn't be banging a hooker without a condom, but it's still a risk.
If you are a sex worker and have HIV, you really shouldn't be a sex worker unless the other person also has it already.
>"Being placed on a sex offender registry makes finding employment and housing incredibly difficult. Even though "aggravated prostitution" refers to consensual sex between adults,
Let me get this, ahem, straight, Camp.
Your assertion is that not only are there a significant number of consenting adults out there looking for sex with an HIV+ prostitute, but that these prostitutes are open and clear about their status with everyone?
That they're not lying about it in order to keep the only job they feel they can do?
What about prostitutes with bears in their trunks?
Ouch. Government supplied tubs of vaseline?
I can't agree with you because you are deliberately omitting something in your action.
If you knowingly sleep with someone while you have HIV, you are knowingly exposing them to a deadly retrovirus.
Would they agree to this if they knew your infection? I highly doubt that.
I would call that rape.
Your actions cause them to have expensive, daily medical treatments with famously bad side-effects for the rest of their life, which if they stop their treatments, becomes much shorter.
I would call that battery, to the point of attempted murder.
If this was the 90s, I would call it felony murder with a time delay.
So this aggravated prostitution is actually far less than what I would consider a reasonable charge.
"Would they agree to this if they knew your infection? I highly doubt that.
I would call that rape."
Any lie to have sex, even just by omission, is rape?
Any lie to have sex, even just by omission, is rape?
Do you think a lie by omission to conceal an incurable disease or conflating it with any other lie by omission makes a sound and compelling moral, legal, or libertarian political argument; or do you think it makes you look like a mentally-handicapped psychopath?
Did I insult you? Why are you so agressive? Do you behave this way in real life when someone ask you a question to clarify your position?
Chill out!
Welcome to reason!
Do you ask people in real life if lying about their HIV status to attain sex is rape the way, e.g., lying about their income to attain sex is rape?
Because normal people don't act that way in real life.
If your question wasn't an insult, why do you presume mine is or that I'm otherwise insulted or aggressive?
“If your question wasn’t an insult, why do you presume mine is or that I’m otherwise insulted or aggressive?”
My question was not about your person. This was your question:
“do you think it makes you look like a mentally-handicapped psychopath?”
“Do you ask people in real life if lying about their HIV status to attain sex is rape the way, e.g., lying about their income to attain sex is rape?”
I was not talking about “their” HIV status. And I still think that my question is a legitimate question.
In my country (France) I don’t think that this is rape: I am no jurist but as far as I know their is no example of conviction for rape on this basis. I know examples of “poisoning” for people actually transmitting HIV after knowingly lying about their status, not wearing a condom and not being under HIV medicine (because if you are under a successful treatment the risk of infection is almost not existent). But not for rape: as far as I know mostly lies about the very identity of the person can count as rape by “surprise” here (once again I am no jurist and both status law and case law do change rapidly under the influence of metoo).
It also seems to me that your opinion is not the present law in Tennessee? Because if not the “aggravated prostitution” charge would have been superfluous (not that it would stop lawmakers, so who knows). It is also probably not the law in most place of the world.
So yeah my question was perfectly fine while your question was rude and disrespectful. Not that you care, I know, but you should.
Lies by omission that result in convictions of rape by deception are typically along the lines of pretending to be other people. Normal lies between lovers are not supposed to qualify.
Deliberately infecting someone with a terminal disease isn't like promising to be true forever. It's even worse than claiming to not be married.
There are numerous statutes and precedent that criminal transmission of HIV is sexual assault. I would refer you to Hinkhouse, which held that this was attempted murder and countless other cases.
There are numerous statutes and precedent that criminal transmission of HIV is sexual assault.
Moreover, explicit sexual details aside, rule of 7s.
Someone 14+, absent other mental defect, is expected to have the capacity to understand the moral distinction. And even 7+, they can be legally recognized as having the capacity. That is, they understand that "I forgot to mention I had a communicable terminal disease." is fundamentally morally different than (e.g.) "I forgot to mention Jewish." even if they don't specifically get the contextual connotation of the latter statement.
"There are numerous statutes and precedent that criminal transmission of HIV is sexual assault. I would refer you to Hinkhouse, which held that this was attempted murder and countless other cases."
In Hinkhouse it was attempted murder and attempted assault, not rape. Do you have any example where non disclosure of HIV status before sex was considered rape in the US? It is not a rhetorical question.
I really find it interesting how, when it benefits people who have or are most at risk for HIV/AIDS, it is the worst plague in human history. When it disadvantages those groups treating HIV/AIDS spread as something of great concern is “profound predjudice”. Either way, there is no good reason for public health policy to countenance sex workers with HIV.
“Even though “aggravated prostitution” refers to consensual sex between adults,…”
If one person has knowingly has HIV and does not tell the other person, can one truly call any sex acts between them “consensual”? Selling a product you know to be dangerously defective, but the buyer does not is a lie of omission and a form of fraud.
Selling a product you know to be dangerously defective, but the buyer does not is a lie of omission and a form of fraud.
And for all the violations of the 2A and the purge the gun control advocacy, it's the *one* common ground. Even the most fervent gun owners and self-defense advocates overwhelmingly admit that if a manufacturer is selling a product that explodes and kills the user or fires randomly, the manufacturer should be *at least* civilly liable.
And yet another example of how the ADA is a terrible law that goes way too far. Yes, thank God, HIV is no longer a death sentence. That said, preventing transmission depends on the infected person taking their meds every day. Missing even one day can have serious consequences. I don’t think most hookers are known for their smarts, thus, IMO, it’s still a huge risk for any John. I agree putting them on the sex offender list is a little too far, but selling sex while poz should still be a crime.
Like convincing someone pretend to play russian roulette with a ‘toy’ gun that in fact is a real gun.
the sex drive makes people crazy sociopaths and extreme risk takers