Daily Mail Published Nude Photos of
Katie Hill. Now She Has to Pay Them
$100k
Los Angeles Magazine,
by
Ian Spiegelman
Original Article
Posted By: OhioNick,
6/4/2021 12:52:27 AM
Former SoCal Congresswoman Katie Hill has been dealt another blow in her lawsuit against her ex-husband and two media companies for publishing nude photos of her without her consent. On Wednesday, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Yolanda Orozco ordered Hill to pay British tabloid the Daily Mail $103,625 in attorneys’ fees and $1,120 in costs, the Daily News reports.
This follows Orzoco’s April ruling to dismiss the Mail as a defendant in the case, in which Hill sued the paper along with ex-husband Kenny Heslep and conservative media outlet RedState, arguing that publishing the compromising photos—allegedly provided by Heslep—constituted “revenge porn,” which is illegal in 46 states.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
john56 6/4/2021 1:06:08 AM (No. 805288)
Gee, we shoulda gotten paid to have to look at them ...
16 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
NotaBene 6/4/2021 1:07:54 AM (No. 805289)
Katie Hill has Ka-mala beat in the whore department. If only she has some black or Hindu blood she could aspire to president.
21 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
Californian 6/4/2021 1:12:52 AM (No. 805292)
Whatever he private life activities were and however we may feel about them, this is a terrible ruling.
The law should always be applied fairly and equally to everyone. I would not want to have to pay my abusers for the pleasure of being their victims. This is ridiculous and the judge should find a new job as a Walmart greeter.
To say that we are happy about this injustice because we don't like her is to make us just as horrible as the leftists who gloat every time a conservative is shot on a baseball field or doesn't get justice trying to sue over a stolen election.
We are better than them and should act like it.
26 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
Ribicon 6/4/2021 1:24:16 AM (No. 805295)
Grand comedy, disgusting abusive opportunistic slob.
11 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
jj1319 6/4/2021 4:44:19 AM (No. 805325)
#3, Hill sued The Daily Mail. Hill lost. Hill has to pay the fees.
What's the problem?
17 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
ARKfamily 6/4/2021 6:13:28 AM (No. 805351)
Katie Hill was not the victim. It might be a good idea not to take nude photos in the first place. I can tell by #3's thinking how twisted and distorted things have become. On all levels, small or big. She now believes she is the victim. This is happening everywhere and our headlines are proof of it.
19 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
Califedup 6/4/2021 7:01:44 AM (No. 805382)
The ironic part about this whole, sordid, disgusting Katie Hill perversion is that no one wanted to see nude photos of this extremely unattractive communist death democrat pig.
15 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
formerNYer 6/4/2021 7:45:21 AM (No. 805427)
Glad I didn't see them, she's not attractive - if you don't want people to see nude photos of you, don't get nude in front of a camera, pretty simple.
10 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
Bur Oak 6/4/2021 7:52:56 AM (No. 805436)
She fits right in Congress.
6 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
thelmalou 6/4/2021 8:00:49 AM (No. 805448)
Well, apparently #3 and I are in the minority here. The general thinking, then, is that providing and publishing revenge porn is a-ok, and the only objection is that the revenge pornee is not attractive. Do I have that right?
Y'all should be ashamed of yourselves. First, I think this judge is ridiculously wrong in saying the images have some sort of relevance due to her (former) position. Second, to add insult to injury, she now has to pay those who committed offense against her upwards of half a million dollars in legal fees.
I don't agree with her politics at all. But this is unjust. If this were y'all's mother or daughter, would you be fine with it? Geez...remind me not to count on y'all for help in defending my constitutional rights.
5 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
Mizz Fixxit 6/4/2021 8:49:37 AM (No. 805501)
Katie Hill is trash. She sued, she deserved to lose.
5 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
laurenc 6/4/2021 9:05:34 AM (No. 805530)
To those who think Katie was wronged, contribute to her fund, and stop complaining. She sued, she lost. End of story.
5 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
ARKfamily 6/4/2021 9:10:09 AM (No. 805538)
My reply to #10, no, I won't be ashamed of myself. A year ago, we had this country lit on fire because phone coverage photos were taken of a police officer trying to address a serious situation with a person. In everyone's mind, those photos were legitimate and protests followed. Nobody questioned the authenticity of those photos and there is probably not much police officers can do when someone is using their phone as a camera. So now you have a wife posing nude for her husband, and all of a sudden it becomes a gray area when divorce occurs. Katie Hill thinks she is a victim when, in fact, she does have control of these kind of pictures being taken. DON'T have them taken. . .
6 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
DVC 6/4/2021 9:25:19 AM (No. 805561)
Actually, #3, there are many cases where when you sue someone without merit, you become responsible for their expenses accrued in defending against your meritless suit. I think that is a GOOD idea. It makes it less likely that folks will use the filing of meritless lawsuits as a financial punishment when they know that they cannot get any legal redress because there is no legitimate case.
4 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
WestCoast 6/4/2021 9:30:19 AM (No. 805572)
I don't usually comment on article like this but I have to go along with the majority of commentors on this. Conservatives like to take the high road and look where this has gotten us. We are in a propaganda war with liberals and communists and if we don't start fighting back using some of the same tactics, we're done and so are our children and grandchildren. Don't bring a nerf ball to a gunfight in other words.
Hill sued, costing the daily mail when she should have shut up and faded into the shadows, she cost the 'paper' money, they deserve to get the money back. Loser pays should be the standard not the very rare exception when the suit is frivolous or unjustified. That standard would put a lot of unethical attorneys out of work and probably go a long way to unclogging civil courts.
5 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
Californian 6/4/2021 9:47:23 AM (No. 805593)
Apologies for second post but this is important:
This is a revenge porn case, pure and simple.
There are laws against that. Those laws were violated. Period.
Her suit was not frivolous. Her level of attraction to you is irrelevant. Her political positions are irrelevant. George Floyd is irrelevant. Her private sexual proclivities are irrelevant. "Don't let those photos get taken" is victim blaming and her allowing them to be taken is not an e fuse to publish private photos in an illegal act of revenge porn publishing.
Yes. You should all be ashamed of yourselves. I am for you if you aren't capable of it.
The publication was both unethical and illegal. The judge is an idiot. She is a victim. If it was your dumb 18 year old daughter you'd be screaming bloody murder and don't tell us how you raised her better; most 18 year olds are morons no matter how they're raised.
Shame on the judge and shame on all of you who think she deserved to be punished for choosing her husband poorly.
3 people like this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
Mizz Fixxit 6/4/2021 10:00:03 AM (No. 805603)
Excuse the second post. Although not qualified to state a legal opinion, I am informed enough to say, our legal system leans far left. The DOJ and FBI regularly target conservatives for political persecution. While democrat criminals generally operate with impunity. This Katie Hill legal decision is a rare victory. My immature side savors it.
5 people like this.
Reply 18 - Posted by:
skacmar 6/4/2021 10:16:58 AM (No. 805620)
Like her politics/personality or not, did the Daily Mail really need to publish revenge porn photos of Katie Hill just because they could? While the Daily Mail and other defendants may have been awarded costs & fees, Hill's ex- husband was not cleared. Let's hope that he is held responsible for the alleged abuse and releasing the nude photos which cause personal harm to Ms. Hill and she is well compensated for his actions. Also, lets hope that Ms. Hill has learned that nude photos are never a good idea!
1 person likes this.
Reply 19 - Posted by:
WV.Hillbilly 6/4/2021 10:29:17 AM (No. 805641)
This wasn't "revenge porn". They were photos of a sitting congressperson naked with a subordinate member of her staff.
6 people like this.
Reply 20 - Posted by:
TLCary 6/4/2021 10:35:47 AM (No. 805649)
#3 She cost these companies over $100K in legal fees trying to enrich herself in a way the law doesn't allow. If you got sued and won because the law was clearly on your side, you would want $100K it cost you to defend yourself back. You clearly don't like the law and say the judge should be fired because they refuse to rewrite it from the bench. That's not our way. The US Constitution provides us freedom of the press, there isn't an overriding clause that says "unless your abhorrent behavior is embarrassing".
5 people like this.
Reply 21 - Posted by:
cartcart 6/4/2021 10:50:44 AM (No. 805670)
She may still owe the No-tell Motel for the soiled sofa. She was a sitting member of the House of Representatives sitting nude on a sofa, combing the nits out of an aide’s hair and raised no objection. Now that the marriage is over, her office vacated, and the photos or videos published, she is aggrieved. She is a victim, of course, but a victim of her own doing or undoing as the case may be. The moral bar for government service is very low and it always has been. She couldn’t even reach the lowest bar of all!
If you betray the public trust like this, how do you take umbrage with anyone who betrays your trust? She divorced the husband, a third member of this sordid threesome. When things go bad in a rotten relationship, all parties to the threesome have to understand the facts. People who stoop to kinky stuff can’t be trusted to not spill the beans when the fun times end. Better said, you lie with dogs, you get the fleas.
This is a terrible chapter in three lives. Karma, the unknown and unseen fourth member of the threesome, looked on their antics, and true to from, became the b——— that she has always been and ruined their little secret.
The best they can do is learn from the mistakes, draw up better life plans and move on. Costly mistakes never end well. Hopefully, they will all find some semblance of normalcy.
4 people like this.
Reply 22 - Posted by:
ARKfamily 6/4/2021 10:56:44 AM (No. 805678)
#16, as you can tell I don't take kindly to someone telling me I should be ashamed of myself when I have nothing to be ashamed of. Given your stance, then not one picture should be used from a personal camera in the George Floyd trial. By the way, I would be having a conversation with my daughter in taking nude pictures. Actions have consequences and I would be telling her that not every action should be money worthy. Also, according to #19, "They were photos of a sitting congressperson naked with a subordinate member of her staff." That would be sexual harassment in private business and can the husband sue for emotional pain of seeing his wife nude with someone other than himself?
5 people like this.
Reply 23 - Posted by:
john56 6/4/2021 11:53:25 AM (No. 805754)
Revenge porn, alternative lifestyle, what's the difference.
The Democrats are sleazebags from the word go, let ' em suffer. Now, if someone finds revenge porn pictures of Schiffy or Swalwell and Ling Ling or whoever the Chinese spy was, please warn me ahead of time. Lord knows, I'd never get that horrific image out of my head.
2 people like this.
Reply 24 - Posted by:
local500 6/6/2021 4:51:34 AM (No. 807124)
Might be the first time a hooker paid that amount of money.
0 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "OhioNick"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)