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.

    • ryven@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      1/1,000,000,000 is probably safer than driving to the store, and I do that every few days.

      • chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        9 months ago

        The number isn’t important, I just pulled a bunch of nines out of my ass to illustrate my point that there is a life and death difference in 100 and 99.99999.

        • pohart@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          But the number is important, and the number in this case is probably work to get that number closer to one by handing out prep and condoms to the prostitutes and Johns.

          Instead they’re prosecuting the only people involved who are likely to be victims.

        • QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          I just pulled a bunch of nines out of my ass

          Yeah, along with the rest of your argument. You are free to not participate in *checks notes* the consumption of illegal prostitution if you are uncomfortable with the inherent risks associated with *double-checks notes, just to be sure* the consumption of illegal prostitution.