Judge dismisses Katie Hill revenge pornography claim against Daily Mail

A California[1] judge removed the Daily Mail as a defendant in a lawsuit filed by former Rep. Katie Hill[2] that argued the news outlet violated the state’s revenge pornography law in publishing nude photos of her without the Democrat’s consent.

Judge Yolanda Orozco of the Los Angeles Superior Court announced on Wednesday that she was dismissing the claim[3] on First Amendment[4] grounds, concluding that the photos were a matter of public interest. Hill argues that her ex-husband, who she says took the photos, sent them to the Daily Mail in order to inflict emotional harm.

Hill, now 33, resigned her seat in the House[5] in 2019 after the photos were made public, and the congresswoman admitted to an affair with the campaign staffer.

MATT GAETZ’S DEFENSE OF KATIE HILL NOT STOPPING HER FROM CALLING FOR HIS RESIGNATION[6]

“Here, the intimate images published by Defendant spoke to Plaintiff’s character and qualifications for her position, as they allegedly depicted Plaintiff with a campaign staffer whom she was alleged to have had a sexual affair with and appeared to show Plaintiff using a then-illegal drug and displaying a tattoo that was controversial because it resembled a white supremacy symbol that had become an issue during her congressional campaign,” the judge said.

She added, “Plaintiff’s argument that the images are not a matter of public concern because Defendant could have simply described the images rather than publishing them is unpersuasive, as the fact that information to be gleaned from an image may be disseminated in an alternative manner does not equate to a finding that the image itself is not a matter of public concern.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER[7]

Other parties named in the lawsuit include RedState and Hill’s ex-husband, Kenneth Heslep, but Wednesday’s decision was specifically in reference to the Daily Mail.

The Washington Examiner[8] reached out to the Daily Mail and Hill’s attorney for comment on the decision but did not immediately hear back.

References

  1. ^ California (www.washingtonexaminer.com)
  2. ^ Katie Hill (www.washingtonexaminer.com)
  3. ^ dismissing the claim (www.courthousenews.com)
  4. ^ First Amendment (www.washingtonexaminer.com)
  5. ^ House (www.washingtonexaminer.com)
  6. ^ MATT GAETZ’S DEFENSE OF KATIE HILL NOT STOPPING HER FROM CALLING FOR HIS RESIGNATION (www.washingtonexaminer.com)
  7. ^ CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER (www.washingtonexaminer.com)
  8. ^ Washington Examiner (www.washingtonexaminer.com)