Define "reckless". A religious zealot may define it to mean "anyone having sex outside of marriage".

Still think it's a good idea?

@Armchaircouch @JGNWYRK

@Heucuva8 @Armchaircouch @JGNWYRK

This interested me, and apparently there are laws in my state -- and people have been prosecuted -- if a person knows their HIV status is positive and engage in sexual behavior that poses a significant risk of transmission.

They can face felony charges for assaulting someone using bodily fluids with intent to transmit, failing to disclose their HIV status with needle-sharing partners or failing to disclose their status before donating blood or body tissues.

@Heucuva8 @Armchaircouch @JGNWYRK

So I think the laws have to be written in a very specific and precise way? Right?

I mean.... that makes sense to me, sort of. It is more precise than "reckless".

@Heucuva8 @Armchaircouch @JGNWYRK
But you know what else?

Why HIV?

Because homophobia, of course.

But why not other diseases? Like... COVID or other STDs?

I get where they're going with this, protecting public health, but boy does it open up a big ole can of worms.

HIV is and was one of the deadliest things to rip through humans in the 80s and maybe 90s, there are actually doctors out there concerned with public health, and they made disclosure mandatory by law.

I have had the same thought though about Covid! Back when it came out it was very deadly, at least for some, imo it’s 100% unethical if not disclosed that you had it within any recent timeframe if you’re going to be physical or in the presence of someone, yes!

@janallmac @Heucuva8 @JGNWYRK

@janallmac @Heucuva8 @Armchaircouch @JGNWYRK As soon as you said COVID I could only imagine the insanity that would ensue in the OK House if that were brought up. lol

@Superstitionsee @Heucuva8 @Armchaircouch @JGNWYRK

Yeah, same! Can you imagine? But why be so concerned about recklessly spreading one disease and not another? Especially when people can die from it?

Apparently some folks were concerned! As they should be…

this article is just Florida, I bet you there are court cases that people have won against others who intentionally spread Covid.

@janallmac @Superstitionsee @Heucuva8 @JGNWYRK

https://www.criminal-defense-dui.lawyer/blog/intentional-covid-19-spread-can-put-you-in-jail-or-a-lawsuit/

In the law recklessness is specific. ie:

“Recklessness is different–and more serious–than mere negligence. Recklessness refers to a situation where a person knowingly does something dangerous or willfully disregards the safety of other people or property. It may also be called gross negligence or willful or wanton behavior”

some people may not now get tested when symptomatic (yuck, yikes!), but there will be Dr. records when others have go for symptoms.
@janallmac @Heucuva8 @JGNWYRK

Imagine you're a VERY CONSERVATIVE Christian. That description is exactly how they would describe anyone who has sex outside of marriage, or more specifically, outside of deliberate procreation. Now apply it to a gay couple, who are CLEARLY not trying to make babies.

See how it would be politically abused?

@Armchaircouch @janallmac @JGNWYRK

I definitely do however, that does not mean that people who recklessly spread diseases should not be charged with assault.
@Heucuva8 @janallmac @JGNWYRK

True, but it's a little bit more serious when you talk HIV.
Part of the issue is that things like HPV qualify as STI, so teenagers who are promiscuous might be charged as well. Even if they didn't know, or if they were born with it.

All because they can't define "reckless".

@janallmac @Armchaircouch @JGNWYRK

@Heucuva8 @Armchaircouch @JGNWYRK
It really does seem like there should be a better way of protecting public health. There should be consequences maybe, for getting other people sick.. but it would be awfully hard and often unjust to figure out who is being reckless and intentional.

if a teenager knows that they carry HPV they should definitely be charged as reckless endangerment if they’re having sex with even just one person, it does not even need to be promiscuous, if they have not disclosed it. Definitely.

The sad thing that seems to be in the state is that people don’t care enough about other people to disclose :/ @Heucuva8 @janallmac @JGNWYRK

for sure, I think, in the cases where nothing can be proven then they would not be found guilty of anything. If they cannot test for it, they cannot say it originated with them, and therefore cannot prove any reckless activity. @Smersh @Heucuva8 @janallmac @JGNWYRK

It’s possible they will ultimately define it has one who had prior knowledge that they were carrying it and had unprotected sex anyway.

@Heucuva8 @JGNWYRK