Nude images of Katie Hill were in the “public interest” when published by The Daily Mail – a judge in Los Angeles on Wednesday ruled that he had rejected the lawsuit of the former congresswoman against the media.
Judge Yolanda Orozco, Los Angeles High Court, said the photos speak to Hill’s ‘character’ and ‘qualifications’ for the post, which she left in October 2019, less than a year into her first term, according to a ruling which The Los Angeles Daily News received. .
The Mail’s website published the photos days before the Democrat resigned in California amid intense investigation into her three-way relationship with her husband and a female staff member and an alleged relationship with a law enforcement assistant in her office, which a investigation to the Ethics Committee of the House unleashed.
“The intimate images published by (the Daily Mail) spoke to (Hill)’s character and qualifications for her position, as they allegedly (Hill) suggested to a campaign staffer with whom she allegedly had a sexual relationship. ‘and apparently shows (Hill) using a then-illegal drug and displaying a tattoo that was controversial because it looks like a white ruler symbol that became a problem during her congressional campaign,’ Orozco wrote.
“Consequently, the images were a matter of public interest or public interest.”
According to the Daily News, the judge argued the first grounds for amendment by dismissing the case and sharing that it was ‘what journalism is all about’.
Hill sued the Mail, Redstate.com and her ex-husband, Kenny Heslep, in December, claiming they had spread “non-consensual porn” by publishing the images, including a nude photo taken by Heslep.
The former congressman said she “had extreme emotional distress, committed suicide and was forced to quit her job”, about the publication of the sexually explicit photos.
Her lawyers argued that the images were not in the public interest because the publication could only describe them.
According to the report, the judge found the argument to be ‘unconvincing’.
“The fact that 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.
Carrie Goldberg, Hill’s lawyer, said in court on Wednesday that there was something “fundamentally different” to sharing nude photos – and warned that Orozco’s ruling would give free rein to those who call themselves a journalist for such content. to publish.
Hill, 33, will now have to pay the fees of Mail’s lawyers for the loss of the motion, something that, according to her lawyer, could bankrupt the former lawmaker.
The judge replied that “not much can be done about it. “Some of our laws have harsh results,” the report said.