Disgraced former Rep. Katie Hill (D-CA) has been ordered to pay $220,000 in legal fees to three parties she sued, accusing them of violating California’s “revenge porn” statutes.
“On Wednesday, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Yolanda Orozco awarded about $105,000 to the parent company of the Daily Mail,” the far-left Los Angeles Times reports. “Orozco previously ordered Hill to pay about $84,000 to the attorneys of … [the] managing editor of … Red State, and about $30,000 to lawyers representing radio producer Joseph Messina.”
After winning a GOP-held congressional seat in 2018, Hill was amplified by the corporate media and Democrats as a burgeoning political superstar, primarily because she is openly bisexual, which is another historic first, or something.
It all came crashing down the following year after Red State and the Daily Mail published photos and texts in an effort to prove Hill had an affair with a male subordinate who worked in her congressional office, as well as an earlier affair that included her now ex-husband with a female campaign worker, another subordinate, starting in 2017 and lasting until after she was elected in 2018.
Hill denied the affair with her congressional staffer but admitted to the one with the female campaign worker.
Hill’s failed lawsuits claimed California’s 2013 revenge-porn law was violated with the publishing of her nude photos without her permission.
But on top of these lawsuits, Hill also lost her congressional seat and the public relations battle.
Although she was the one who violated House Ethics Rules by having and admitting to an affair with a campaign subordinate, after the release of the photos, she tried to paint herself as the victim of sexism. That, however, did not change the fact that the photos and text messages were beyond damning and made it difficult to believe her denials about sleeping with her male congressional staffer.
She was forced to resign in October 2019.
The L.A. Times says of the failed lawsuits:
The publications and Van Laar successfully argued that Hill’s lawsuit failed to meet the requirements of the revenge porn statute because they were not the original distributors of the images, because Hill’s nipples and genitals were redacted in the published pictures and because of the “public interest” exemption. They also asserted that they had a 1st Amendment right to publish information about an elected official’s behavior that is newsworthy.
There’s just no question her lawsuits were a joke. The notion that publishing redacted photos that essentially proved a public official’s wrongdoing is not newsworthy is ridiculous. The notion it’s an act of “revenge porn” is laughable.
While I personally would not have published the actual photos and Breitbart News made the decision not to publish them, that’s an editorial decision, not a legal one. Publishing those photos was obviously in the public interest, and Hill only made a fool of herself with this face-saving lawsuit that has now face-planted her with a $220,000 legal bill.
I’m all for suing the media but only when the media publish lies and smears. I hope CNNLOL and the rest of America’s media monsters are sued out of existence, but Red State and the Daily Mail did not publish a lie. They published a truth, and the world already feels upside down enough without media outlets being bankrupted for telling the truth.
Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC. Follow his Facebook Page here.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.