In a lawsuit against two British tabloids, former Rep. Katie Hill lost big time. And I mean big.
The one-time California Democrat alleged in a lawsuit that the tabloids were seeking to publish “revenge porn” when news broke of a sex scandal that rattled the walls of Congress.
A judge in Los Angeles ruled this week that Hill must pay over $200,000 in attorneys’ fees – half of that sum going to parent company of the British tabloids, The Daily Mail.
Despite her shoddy attempt to sue the the British rags, it just so happens that in America there is something called the First Amendment.
Hill took to twitter to victimize herself after the court ruling:
A judge just ordered me to PAY the Daily Mail more than $100k for the privilege of them publishing nude photos of me obtained from an abuser.
The justice system is broken for victims.
Our fight continues – please chip in if you can: https://t.co/qKaSPpC2nq#BoycottDailyMail
— Katie Hill (@KatieHill4CA) June 2, 2021
The judge threw out the former Rep’s suit on grounds that the nude photos published were protected under the First Amendment, noting they were a matter of public interest given her role in government. Hill argued that her ex-husband, who took the photos, sent them to tabloids in an effort to inflict harm. None of her claims could be substantiated with proper evidence.
According to a spokesperson for Hill, she plans to appeal the ruling handed down this week.
At the time of the scandal, conservative news reported an alleged the California Democrat, an open bisexual, had an affair with a her male congressional staffer. Meanwhile, her ex-husband, along with Rep. Hill, were involved in a “throuple” with with another female campaign worker.
The photos in question show Rep. Hill nude while brushing another woman’s hair while holding a bong traditionally used for smoking marijuana.
She denied the first allegation but admitted to the second and acknowledged the relationship was inappropriate given she was a subordinate.
Both controversies led to her eventual resignation from the House of Representatives.
The media outlets argued that the photos of Hill failed to reach the requirements set forth by California’s revenge porn law.
Author: Nolan Sheridan
To learn how you can use Content.ad to drive visitors to your content or add this service to your site, please contact us at [email protected].
Website owners select the type of content that appears in our units. However, if you would like to ensure that Content.ad always displays family-friendly content on this device, regardless of what site you are on, check the option below. Learn More