WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 1371

Criminal Offenses - As enacted, clarifies that a person commits the offense of unlawful exposure by distributing a private, intimate image of another identifiable person with intent to cause emotional distress, regardless of whether the person who distributes the image was a party to the original agreement or understanding that the image would remain private. - Amends TCA Title 39, Chapter 17.

114th Regular Session (2025-2026) Introduced by Jesse Chism

Tennessee law now criminalizes sharing private intimate images to cause emotional distress, even if the sharer didn't originally agree to keep them confidential.

Comp. became Pub. Ch. 432
#criminaloffenses
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 1371

Legislative bill overview

HB 1371 expands Tennessee's unlawful exposure law to criminalize the distribution of private intimate images with intent to cause emotional distress, regardless of whether the person sharing the image was originally part of any agreement to keep it private. This closes a legal loophole where someone who received a private intimate image from a third party could previously share it without criminal liability.

Why is this important

Intimate image abuse—commonly called "revenge porn"—causes documented psychological harm to victims and disproportionately affects women and LGBTQ+ individuals. The original law only covered those who were parties to the initial private sharing agreement, leaving victims vulnerable when images were passed to additional people without consent. This amendment extends protection to victims whose images are shared by people who never agreed to keep them confidential.

Potential points of contention

  • First Amendment concerns: Critics may argue that restricting image distribution could conflict with free speech protections, particularly in cases involving matters of public interest or newsworthy content
  • Prosecution burden: Prosecutors must prove the distributor's specific intent to cause emotional distress, which can be difficult to establish in digital communication cases
  • Definition ambiguity: The bill doesn't explicitly define "private, intimate image," potentially creating enforcement inconsistency regarding what qualifies (artistic nudes, medical images, etc.)

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.