Woman loses case against newspaper that published nude photos of her

[PotholeHellhole]

A Los Angeles judge dismissedformer Rep. Katie Hill's lawsuit against the Daily Mail over the outlet publishing whatshe called on Twitter, "nonconsensual nude images" of her.

Los Angeles Judge Yolanda Orozco ruled Wednesday that the photos were "a matter of public issue or public interest," theOrange County Registerreported.

Rest of article here: www.businessinsider.com/katie-hill-lawsuit-daily-mail-nude-photos-2021-4?op=1&r=US&IR=T

There are a lot of important things here, but I want to highlight that she resigned from Congress over it, and has been replaced by a male politician.

Women are under-represented in public life, and in part that's because higher standards are expected of us. And I think this is only going to get worse. The aspiring female politicians of (the day after) tomorrow are currently teenage girls, being coaxed into starting OF accounts and into sending intimate photos of themselves to boyfriends.

Same text but with spaces reinserted.

A Los Angeles judge dismissed former Rep. Katie Hill's lawsuit against the Daily Mail over the outlet publishing what she called on Twitter, "nonconsensual nude images" of her.

Los Angeles Judge Yolanda Orozco ruled Wednesday that the photos were "a matter of public issue or public interest," the Orange County Register reported.

bloody hell that's horrendous! How is seeing naked photos in the "public interest"? why isnt it enough to be told of the allegations made? why does it need to be illustrated with photos?

So, a woman has non-consensual photos of her nude leaked and she has no control over them.

There is a lot going on with this case, but it is concerning for the future of non-consensual intimate photos, or even consensual photos at time of taking for only private use being used in ways without express permission.

If the newspaper felt that there was a public interest in the fact that she was naked in the company of a staffer that she had denied she was having an affair with, and that she was pictured using drugs and had a white supremacy tattoo - then could they not have published the pictures with her body blurred? With only the tattoo visible for example. Why the need to expose her naked body as well?

I think a member of our own judiciary once remarked that the 'public interest' is not the same as 'what the public is interested in'.

As far as I can tell (and I hope I'm wrong), this case involves the UK's Daily Mail. I don't see how seeing a minor Californian politician naked was in the British public's interest.

The images were published on the DailyMail.com website which has a large majority US audience. It's a US court case so the presumption is that any talk of public interest relates to the US public.

How were these photos leaked? Was her phone hacked or were they leaked by the person who took the photo and therefore I supposed owned it, in which case why did she not take that person to court?

Blimey! For some reason it had never really occurred to me that anyone outside the UK looked at the website version.

I stand sit corrected.

@334bu

How were these photos leaked? Was her phone hacked or were they leaked by the person who took the photo and therefore I supposed owned it, in which case why did she not take that person to court?

She's suing her ex-husband as well, in a separate case.

I wonder if she'd have had a better shot if she sued over here?

'Here, the intimate images published by [the Mail] spoke to [Hill's] character and qualifications for her position, as they allegedly depicted [Hill] with a campaign staffer whom she was alleged to have had a sexual affair with and appeared to show [Hill] 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 wrote. '

There seems to be more to this.

? Abuse of power
? White supremacist tattoo

Reading it, it seems she is appealing to the public based on the revenge porn thing

I haven't seen the pics (and don't want to). Were they blurred but showed the tattoo?

I don't know anything about this so genuinely don't know.

twitter.com/cagoldberglaw/status/1379870436117389315

Katie Hills relationship was between two consenting adults, so I don’t see how it’s abuse of power. Has the person in the relationship claimed it was.

Seems like a lot of misogynistic bollocks to me. Now the hell pulling crap like this is in the public’s interest, I don’t know. I’d call it revenge porn, as close as dammit.

Hopefully her team can have this reversed at the appellate court.

Also, I’m not gonna click on a DM link of the photos, but the description of the tattoo calls it an iron cross. I thought the white supremacist cross had a nazi flag symbol on it, which isn’t mentioned.

Has to pay costs for it.

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/katie-hill-daily-mail-photos-b1858754.html

"A judge has ordered former Representative Katie Hill to pay more than $100,000 in legal fees to the Daily Mail over her unsuccessful revenge porn lawsuit."

I think it’s more to do with the fact that at the time of publication, nude pictures which are not sexually explicit (no sex act happening), did not qualify as revenge porn under California’s revenge porn laws. Her case was dismissed on this technicality.

Katie Hills relationship was between two consenting adults, so I don’t see how it’s abuse of power. Has the person in the relationship claimed it was.

You may have a point about consenting adults, but the other side of the argument...

www.vox.com/identities/2019/10/23/20928700/katie-hill-congresswoman-resigns-leaked-red-state

The allegations against Hill are serious. As the Washington Post notes, it is against the code of conduct adopted by Congress last year for legislators to engage in sexual relationships with their staff. Prior to her resignation, the House Ethics Committee had announced an investigation into the allegation of her relationship with Kelly.

The code of conduct does not cover campaign staff, but many advocates say there’s a fundamental problem with an employer having a sexual relationship with an employee. There are “inherent power dynamics involved with superiors and their subordinates, which makes the issue of consent difficult,” Ally Coll, co-founder of the anti-sexual harassment organization the Purple Campaign, told Vox.

The texts hinting at abuse make the allegation even more troubling....

In addition, Hills relationship was with a young, female staffer.....

The pictures when they were published, had all intimate areas (breasts, genitals) blacked out.

For example, in the full-body shot meant to highlight a bikini-line tattoo that appears to be some version of a Nazi Iron Cross, Hill is using a cannabis bong, with her genitals and one exposed breast painted out.