Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
A British tabloid did not violate California's revenge-porn law by publishing Katie Hill pictures
Los Angeles TimesA British tabloid did not violate California’s revenge-porn law by publishing intimate pictures of then-Rep. Katie Hill without her consent, a judge ruled on Wednesday.
The Daily Mail’s news gathering and publication of images depicting a nude Hill brushing another woman’s hair and holding a bong are protected by the 1st Amendment, and the content of the pictures was in the public interest because of Hill’s position as an elected official, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Yolanda Orozco wrote in a decision that dismissed Hill’s case against the Daily Mail.
Hill vowed to appeal.
“Today, we lost in court because a judge — not a jury — thinks revenge porn is free speech. This fight has massive implications for any woman who ever wants to run for office, so quitting isn’t an option,” Hill tweeted.
The Daily Mail’s news gathering and publication of images depicting a nude Hill brushing another woman’s hair and holding a bong are protected by the 1st Amendment, and the content of the pictures was in the public interest because of Hill’s position as an elected official, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Yolanda Orozco wrote in a decision that dismissed Hill’s case against the Daily Mail.
Hill vowed to appeal.
“Today, we lost in court because a judge — not a jury — thinks revenge porn is free speech. This fight has massive implications for any woman who ever wants to run for office, so quitting isn’t an option,” Hill tweeted.
