Charlie Sheen is HIV positive

[jimmy olsen]

If he didn't disclose his status to partners, won't he be up for aggravated assault charges?

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/11/charlie-sheen-hiv-positive

Charlie Sheen Will Reportedly Disclose H.I.V.-Positive Status

The actor is expected to make the announcement on NBC's Today on Tuesday.

by Julie Miller,

Charlie Sheen, the volatile former star of Two and a Half Men, is reportedly H.I.V. positive, according to TMZ.

The outlet breaks the news after NBC's Today announced that the four-time Emmy nominee would make an appearance on Tuesday's show, in an interview with Matt Lauer.

The report follows a series of blind gossip items about "an A-list actor [who] was diagnosed with HIV." Although commenters suggested that Sheen fits the profile described by Radar, the actor has not commented on the speculation.

TMZ alleges that Sheen knew about "his status for more than a year" and tried to keep the medical news a secret but friends he had trusted with the diagnosis started leaking the information. The outlet continues:


That led to several of Charlie's former partners contacting him and threatening a lawsuit because they were unaware of his status when they had interaction with him. Our sources say Charlie settled several of the cases and, in return for money, got confidentiality agreements.

Publicist and crisis manager Howard Bragman has since told People that he was approached by people close to Sheen earlier this year about how to handle the situation. "The interview could open up a lot of sympathy for him, but he has to be concerned about a fear of litigation from former sexual partners," Bragman told the magazine.

Bragman, who has never dealt with Sheen directly, added that the actor "is getting treatment, and a lot of people in his life know about it." He continued, "It's been going on for quite awhile. He's not necessarily comfortable talking about it. It was very hard to get up the courage for him to talk about it."

On Monday, Today confirmed Sheen was scheduled on the show, and teased that the actor "will make a revealing personal announcement on Tuesday, November 17, in a sit-down interview with Matt Lauer."

In 2011, Vanity Fair's Mark Seal wrote about the actor's very public implosion, which coincided with his exit from Two and a Half Men after eight seasons starring on the CBS sitcom, and his turbulent life growing up the son of movie star Martin Sheen. To read Seal's investigation of Sheen's dark spiral into drugs, hookers, and rehab, click here.

VF Hollywood has reached out to Sheen's publicist for comment.

[garbon]

If he didn't disclose his status to partners, won't he be up for aggravated assault charges?

Depends on jurisdiction. Horrible laws those, btw.

Also, why are you reporting he is if the story is that he will reportedly be announcing this?

[HVC]

I'd be more surprising if he didn't have HIV, really.

[Admiral Yi]

Horrible laws those, btw.

Totally disagree.

[garbon]

Horrible laws those, btw.

Totally disagree.

Let's see. 1) They discourage people to get tested, 2) They often get used in horribly vindictive ways (by both jilted lovers and law enforcement), 3) They seem to be rooted in olden days when HIV transmission was actually difficult to prevent during sex/effective treatments were basically unavailable, 4) We don't require any other sexually transmitted diseases, many of which can have serious health implications, be disclosed to partners, 5) There are already adequate laws for someone who knowingly and intentionally transmits an HIV infection and maybe less important but 6) They help to continue stigmatization of HIV+ people as well as support myths regarding HIV transmission.

Or as the Obama administration put it:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/NHAS.pdf

"A recent research study also found that HIV-specific laws do not influence the behavior of people living with HIV in those states where these laws exist. While we understand the intent behind such laws, they may not have the desired effect and they may make people less willing to disclose their status by making people feel at even greater risk of discrimination. In many instances, the continued existence and enforcement of these types of laws run counter to scientific evidence about routes of HIV transmission and may undermine the public health goals of promoting HIV screening and treatment."

[DGuller]

If you're knowingly exposing people to a deadly disease without informing them, then how exactly is this not a very fucking serious crime?

[crazy canuck]

If you're knowingly exposing people to a deadly disease without informing them, then how exactly is this not a very fucking serious crime?

Did you read the whole of Garbon's post?

[garbon]

If you're knowingly exposing people to a deadly disease without informing them, then how exactly is this not a very fucking serious crime?

Did you read the whole of Garbon's post?

He posted seconds later so I don't think he saw it.

[Tonitrus]

5) There are already adequate laws for someone who knowingly and intentionally transmits an HIV infection 

Wouldn't that be the use of a standard aggravated assault charge referred to...or am I missing something(some other law)? 

[Admiral Yi]

What adequate laws are you referring to Grab On?

[OttoVonBismarck]

It sounds like garbon's explanatory post is just a utilitarian justification for not criminalizing something that is gravely immoral, violates the bounds of decency, causes grave harm to other persons--and in short, satisfies all the normal criteria for criminalizing activity. It seems somewhat similar to saying that you shouldn't require school counselors to report if a student discusses sexual abuse in the home with the counselor because it might discourage the students from getting needed counseling for the abuse.

The fact that we do not have similar laws for other serious STDs just suggests a lapse in the laws, not a reason to get rid of the ones for HIV.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Also I patently reject anyone has ever said "man, I better not get tested for a very treatable disease that will kill me if I never get it diagnosed and treated because doing so creates a paper trail that could result in me going to jail for not disclosing to future sexual partners if I have the disease." Just doesn't happen. These laws may not help combat the spread of HIV but it's dumb to claim any serious number of people in 2015 are not getting tested for HIV because of a fear that they won't be able to have sex without disclosing it in the future. That logic made sense when HIV was a death sentence and knowing largely didn't matter a whole lot, but that's not been the case for 20 years now.

[garbon]

it's dumb to claim any serious number of people in 2015 are not getting tested for HIV because of a fear that they won't be able to have sex without disclosing it in the future.

Okay.

[garbon]

5) There are already adequate laws for someone who knowingly and intentionally transmits an HIV infection 

Wouldn't that be the use of a standard aggravated assault charge referred to...or am I missing something(some other law)? 

Tim said disclosure should carry the assault charge. If you are taking proper medication and using safe sex practices (not that Mr. Sheen is necessarily doing that) transmission chances are lowered very significantly. I don't see why you should be up for aggravated assault barring that - though I would agree that you probably should have just had the uncomfortable conversation with a prospective partner ahead of time.

[alfred russel]

Let's see. 1) They discourage people to get tested,

I doubt many people think: "I might have HIV, which is manageable if detected but often fatal otherwise. However, I'm going to forgo testing, because I really like to raw dog, and if I get tested and am positive, I will be in trouble with the law if I raw dog unsuspecting partners." 

2) They often get used in horribly vindictive ways (by both jilted lovers and law enforcement),

Wouldn't you be horribly vindictive if someone knew he had HIV, didn't tell you, and infected you? Is that a bug or the laws WAD?

3) They seem to be rooted in olden days when HIV transmission was actually difficult to prevent during sex/effective treatments were basically unavailable,

So it is cool to expose people to HIV without their knowledge because there are treatments now?

4) We don't require any other sexually transmitted diseases, many of which can have serious health implications, be disclosed to partners,

Maybe we should.

5) There are already adequate laws for someone who knowingly and intentionally transmits an HIV infection and maybe less important but

That seems to contradict #4. Assuming laws that don't single out HIV are already on the books, doesn't that mean it is required for other STDs as well?

6) They help to continue stigmatization of HIV+ people as well as support myths regarding HIV transmission.

It is a myth that unprotected sex with an infected person can lead to HIV transmission?