WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 1769

Criminal Offenses - As introduced, enacts "The Intercollegiate Student-Athlete Protection Act," which creates a criminal offense of student athlete harassment; punishes the first offense as a Class A misdemeanor and a second or subsequent offense as a Class E felony; and specifies that a student athlete who is the victim of student athlete harassment has a private right of action against a person convicted of the offense. - Amends TCA Title 4, Chapter 49; Title 39 and Title 49.

114th Regular Session (2025-2026) Introduced by John Clemmons

Tennessee bill criminalizes student-athlete harassment as misdemeanor/felony and grants athletes private right to sue convicted offenders.

Action Def. in s/c Criminal Justice Subcommittee to 3/18/2026
#criminaloffenses
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 1769

Legislative bill overview

HB 1769 creates a new criminal offense specifically targeting harassment of intercollegiate student-athletes in Tennessee. First-time offenders face Class A misdemeanor charges, while repeat offenders face Class E felony charges. The bill also grants student-athletes a private right of action to sue those convicted of the offense.

Why is this important

College athletics generate significant revenue and attention, and student-athletes face unique pressures from fans, media, and online communities. This legislation attempts to provide legal recourse and criminal penalties for harassment, though it raises questions about how "student athlete harassment" is legally defined and distinguished from other harassment laws. The private right of action could lead to civil litigation alongside criminal prosecution.

Potential points of contention

  • Definition and scope: The bill's language doesn't appear to define what constitutes "student athlete harassment" with specificity, creating potential ambiguity about whether it covers online criticism, fan comments, social media harassment, or physical threats—and how broadly it applies
  • First Amendment concerns: Critics may argue that criminalizing certain speech directed at athletes conflicts with free speech protections, particularly if the definition includes non-threatening criticism or commentary
  • Redundancy with existing law: Tennessee already has general harassment, cyberstalking, and threatening statutes; opponents may question whether a sport-specific law is necessary or if it creates unequal protection under law

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

Sign in to ask a question.