Democrats are quick to blame conservatives for whatever public scandal they find themselves in. That was a costly mistake for one California Democrat.
A judge ordered Katie Hill, the disgraced Congresswoman whose nude photos of her and a campaign aide were leaked to the press, to pay the legal fees of the journalists and media outlet she was suing, the Blaze reported. Hill claimed she was the victim of so-called revenge porn, but the judge ruled the parties were within their First Amendment rights to publish.
L.A. County Superior Court Judge Yolanda Orozco ordered Hill to pay $200,000 in legal fees to radio producer Joseph Messina, Jennifer Van Laar at Red State, and the Daily Mail. She ruled that releasing these photos served the “public interest” and therefore was not in violation of the law.
Hill took to social media to express her outrage over the 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,” she claimed before including a link to contribute to her defense fund.
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.
— Katie Hill (@KatieHill4CA) June 2, 2021
Hill first brought the suit against her ex-husband and members of the media in December 2020 over a nude photo published of her and a female staffer that she said was handed over without her consent, according to Fox News. She claimed it was “non-consensual porn” which is against the law in California.
This photo and news of her “throuple” made headlines in 2019, forcing her to resign from the House of Representatives. She admitted to the relationship with her female aide, but still blamed her problems on her sexual identity and a right-wing conspiracy.
“There’s still a lot that people don’t understand about bisexuality,” told ABC News in Feb. 2020. She chastised conservatives for publishing a photo that her ex-husband maliciously used against her.
While it’s true that her husband double-crossed her, the fact that the photo exists in the first place is troubling and relevant to the public discourse. Intimate photos should never be taken for this exact reason, and Hill would do well to learn from this very humiliating and expensive lesson.