WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SB 586

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 Raumesh Akbari

Tennessee law now criminalizes sharing private intimate images to cause emotional distress, holding liable anyone distributing such images regardless of how they obtained them, effective July 2025.

Pub. Ch. 432
#criminaloffenses
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SB 586

Legislative bill overview

SB 586 expands Tennessee's unlawful exposure law to criminalize the distribution of private intimate images with intent to cause emotional distress, even when the person sharing the image was not originally part of an agreement to keep it private. The law applies to any identifiable person whose intimate image is shared without consent for the purpose of causing emotional harm.

Why is this important

This addresses the real-world problem of non-consensual intimate image sharing (often called "revenge porn"), which can cause significant psychological harm to victims. The law closes a potential legal loophole by holding liable anyone who distributes such images maliciously, regardless of how they obtained them—meaning a third party who receives and shares an intimate image can now face criminal charges.

Potential points of contention

  • Proof of intent requirement: Prosecuting the "intent to cause emotional distress" element may be challenging, as defendants could claim the distribution was accidental, shared for other reasons, or that they didn't know it would cause distress
  • First Amendment concerns: Some argue that broad image-sharing restrictions could intersect with free speech protections, though courts have generally upheld revenge porn laws as narrow enough to survive constitutional scrutiny
  • Definition boundaries: Questions may arise about what qualifies as "intimate" and whether the law adequately distinguishes between genuinely private consensual images versus images taken/shared in public or semi-public contexts

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

Sign in to ask a question.