‘COMPELLING PUBLIC INTEREST’

Judge Tosses Katie Hill’s Revenge Porn Suit Against Daily Mail

The judge ruled that nude photographs of Hill were a matter of public concern and therefore protected by the First Amendment.

A judge dismissed a suit filed by former congresswoman Katie Hill against The Daily Mail on Thursday, finding the images published by the British tabloid were of “compelling public interest” and therefore protected by the First Amendment. Judge Yolanda Orozco wrote, “Here, the intimate images published by [the Daily Mail] spoke to [Hill’s] character and qualifications for her position, as they allegedly depicted [Hill] with a campaign staffer whom she was alleged to have had a sexual affair with and appeared to show [Hill] using a then-illegal drug and displaying a tattoo that was controversial because it resembled a white supremacy symbol that had become an issue during her congressional campaign.”

The Mail published nude photographs of Hill supplied by her ex-husband Kenneth Heslep in October 2019. Hill resigned from Congress later that month after admitting to an inappropriate relationship with a campaign staffer, Morgan Desjardins. Hill wrote on Twitter, “I sued the Daily Mail for their publication of my nonconsensual nude images. Today, we lost in court because a judge—not a jury—thinks revenge porn is free speech.” Hill’s lawyer Carrie Goldberg indicated her client would appeal: “DM said, and the court agreed, that Katie's nudes were their free speech. We think the appellate court will disagree.” Hill has also sued her ex-husband and conservative news site redstate.com.