LOS ANGELES (CN) — Former congresswoman Katie Hill, who resigned from office after nude photos she claims her ex-husband shared with right-wing news outlets and a British tabloid, saw her case against both the outlets and the journalist she says published the photos fizzle this week.
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Yolando Orozco tossed Hill’s claims against RedState editor Jennifer Van Laar on Thursday, just one day after dismissing claims against the British tabloid the Daily Mail, also on anti-SLAPP grounds. Hill claimed the outlets violated California’s revenge porn law when they worked with her ex-husband, Kenneth Heslep, to publish the photos.
Orozco found the publications have broad protection under the First Amendment despite the harsh outcome for Hill.
“The idea that the courts should regulate what the activities and duties of journalists are is really not in line with what the court’s role is or with the First Amendment,” said Orozco during a Thursday hearing. “Like it or not, it gives wide protection to all journalistic activities whether they’re investigative or sharing or meeting with anonymous sources or publishing in whatever media.”
Orozco said there was public interest in the publication of the photos because they were the subject of a congressional ethics investigation into Hill’s conduct while in office. Hill eventually resigned in 2019.
Just before adopting her ruling, Orozco said she empathizes with Hill.
“The true culprit in the court’s view is the distributor: the ex-husband who took private images and basically made them available to the world,” said Orozco. “That in the court’s view is tragic and unnecessary to have been done, but the court cannot do anything at this time about that conduct.”
Orozco also denied Hill’s motion to depose Van Laar to learn where she got the photos.
“Hot take: revenge porn — illegally shared images — cannot be considered in the public interest in any circumstance,” Hill tweeted Thursday. “If that’s the precedent, countless women will be afraid to run for office because they have shitty exes.”
Hill, 33, was a rising star in the Democratic party when she unseated an incumbent Republican as part of the “blue wave,” winning a shot at representing a section of Southern California in the U.S. House of Representatives. But at the same time, Hill’s home life was falling apart — and eventually, fallout from the publication of the photos unraveled her political career.
Hill argued Heslep orchestrated the publication of the photos by RedState and the Daily Mail after she tried to end their relationship. RedState first posted images and intimate text messages online in October 2019, and the Daily Mail followed suit.
Hill equated the publication of the photos to “nonconsensual porn” and claimed they were part of her ex-husband’s “revenge vendetta.” She also argued the photos were part of a right-wing campaign to remove her from office.
In addition to suing her ex-husband, Hill accused the Daily Mail and RedState editor Jennifer Van Laar of a conspiracy to distribute the images.
Hill had been fighting an uphill battle in court. Last month, Orozco said Van Laar and RedState had a right to publish the photos because they were a matter of public concern.
Van Laar worked as a campaign adviser to former Rep. Steve Knight, the Republican incumbent Hill unseated. She also co-wrote one of several stories featuring the photos that were published in the Daily Mail.
On Wednesday, Orozco tossed the claims against the Daily Mail on anti-SLAPP grounds in an adopted tentative ruling.
The tabloid argued its Oct. 24, 2019, article is protected speech because Hill’s actions were the subject of a House ethics investigation. As for the tabloid's inclusion of a photo of Hill with the campaign staffer and other nude photos, Hill argued the photos were not newsworthy because they were not part of the public debate over her role as an elected official. She said the images were not newsworthy and the Daily Mail included the photos for “morbid and sensational prying” that should not be protected speech.