Katie Hill’s nude images were of “public interest” when they were published by The Daily Mail – a Los Angeles judge ruled Wednesday that dismissed the former congressman’s lawsuit against the media.
Los Angeles High Court Judge Yolanda Orozco said the photos spoke of Hill’s “character” and “qualifications” for the position, which she left in October 2019, less than a year after her first term, according to a ruling obtained by The Los Angeles Daily News.
The Mail’s website posted the photos days before the California Democrat resigned amid intense scrutiny over her three-way relationship with her husband and a female employee and an alleged affair with a law assistant in her office. , which sparked an investigation by the House Ethics Committee.
“Here, the intimate images published by (the Daily Mail) spoke to the character (Hill) and the ratings for his position, as they supposedly represented (Hill) with a campaign employee who was supposed to have an affair. sexual and appeared to show (Hill) using a then illegal drug and showing a controversial tattoo because it resembled a symbol of white supremacy that had become an issue during his campaign in Congress, ”Orozco wrote.
“Consequently, the images were a matter of public interest or public interest.”
The judge cited the reasons for the first amendment to dismiss the lawsuit, and said sharing is “journalism,” according to LA Daily News.
Hill sued Mail, Redstate.com and her ex-husband Kenny Heslep in December, arguing that they had distributed “non-consensual porn” by posting the images, including a nude photo taken by Heslep.
The former congressman said she “suffered extreme emotional distress, attempted suicide and was forced to quit her job,” for the posting of the sexually explicit photos.
His lawyers argued that the images were not in the public interest because the publication could have described them.
But the judge found that argument not “persuasive,” according to the report.
“The fact that the information that can be obtained from an image can be disseminated in an alternative way does not equate to the finding that the image itself is not a matter of public interest,” Orozco ruled.
Hill’s attorney, Carrie Goldberg, told the court Wednesday that there is something “fundamentally different” about sharing nude photos – and warned that Orozco’s ruling would give free rein to anyone who calls themselves a journalist for publishing this content.
Hill, 33, will now have to pay Mail lawyers’ fees for losing the motion, which his lawyer said could bankrupt the former lawmaker.
The judge replied that “I can’t do much about it. Some of our laws have tough results,” the report said.