TN: Woman Removed From Sex Registry Banned from Speaking About Case

Source: tba.org 7/21/25

The state of Tennessee agreed to permanently remove a woman from the sex offender registry months after a judge found she had been “falsely labeled as a sex offender.” But state officials included a stipulation in the agreement forbidding her and her attorneys from discussing the agreement and her lawsuit with the media, The Tennessean reports. They also are barred from speaking to lawyers involved in “sex offender litigation.” That limitation could be unconstitutional, according to a First Amendment lawyer. The woman, who is not named, was threatened that a drug dealer would kill her son if she did not join him in kidnapping his own son. Police said the man ordered her and another woman also to provide sexual services. After six months in jail, the woman pleaded guilty to the…

Read the full article

 

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify or abbreviate their name. 
  24. Please check for typos, spelling, punctuation, and grammar errors before submitting.  Comments that have many errors will not be approved. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

7 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

How exactly can they forbid her from discussing her case publicly or with other attorneys? And what would they do if she does, put her back on it? Charge her with something else?

Definitely seems a 1st Amendment issue here.

There appears to be an NDA involved here in their agreement with her. The bigger issue is why is TN putting her on the PFR listing anyway? Because she willingly consented to sexual services or because there was a kidnapping being discussed? If the latter, then this is a prime example of how the registry is punishment when you add other crimes to it that don’t belong on it in the first place (not condoning the registry either). Why else would you add someone to a registry that she didn’t belong on in the first place? I would surmise TN realized this error when she brought it to the court and worked with her to get her removed for such an error but only under the guise of not revealing her strategy of how her team was able to do it to avoid others from doing the same and hence why they settled with a sealed settlement. I’d image the attys are not party to the NDA since they’d challenge it due to the same thing @Dustin said…1A.

We F’ed up, so you need to shut up. What are they going to do? Put her back on the registry? 🤣

She should leak her story and have a Lifetime movie. Tales From the Volunteer State, where kidnapping will land you on the registry: The whatever name is story.