Judge rules that publishing of revenge porn is protected by First Amendment

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Tweet text:
Katie Hill
@KatieHill4CA
A judge today ruled that RedState - a partisan blog in the business of attacking Democrats, NOT reporting the news - was exercising their first amendment right by posting nude photos of me in a political takedown. (1/3)

The ruling virtually nullifies CA cyber exploitation laws and is too dangerous to let stand. There is no reasonable “public interest” in publishing revenge porn, no matter who the victim is. Unless we appeal, any woman who may ever be in the public eye is at risk. (2/3)

It’s not going to be easy. This is uncharted legal territory, and this fight is necessary to protect women from revenge porn, once and for all. Please help us today https://secure.lawpay.com/pages/cagoldbergpllc/operating-2… (3/3)
5:37 PM · Apr 21, 2021

[Watchfoxheadexplodes]

2. My thoughts exactly

Smh

[Escurumbele]

50. I suggest you think more about agreeing with the removed post, it was insensitive, maybe with some

extra time thinking about it your thoughts will not be exactly.

The implications of that ruling is much broader than that case. Let us not forget that the photos were taken by her husband, someone she trusted, and the coward published them to hurt her and her career.

[MagickMuffin]

3. And to the women who don't know they are being recorded

What about them?

And . . . How do you know Katie consented to the pics?

[CrackityJones75]

8. Isn't that covered under existing law I would imagine?

I think all states have laws regarding the recording of people.

[Under The Radar]

9. That is extortion, a different case altogether.

[brooklynite]

15. Ms, Hill has never claimed that the photos were taken without her permission...

....the issue was apparently that she was estranged from her husband who released them.

[unblock]

4. What the everloving f?????

[StClone]

7. 1000+

[Bettie]

6. That sounds a lot like

"What was she wearing?"

[CurtEastPoint]

11. Exactly. Victim blaming.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

12. What the fuck is this shit right here.

[smirkymonkey]

79. +1000

[obamanut2012]

16. What wonderful victim shaming

The condescending "Dear" just makes it perfect victim shaming. Well done! *chef's kiss*

[NutmegYankee]

25. Jesus H. Christ!

Ugh.

[Luciferous]

29. Wow, a little condescending, aren't we dear?

[ZonkerHarris]

37. victim blaming. Now do rape.

[Under The Radar]

39. She consented to the sex? She consented to the photos?

What is she the victim of?

[tonedevil]

41. Having the pictures published without her consent. /nt

[ZonkerHarris]

43. Being pro-revenge porn is an interesting side to take but you do you.

[hunter]

42. Seriously?

And maybe people should only have sex for procreation...

... in the dark...

... behind locked doors...

... as quietly as possible...

... with God watching over them...



People probably shouldn't have sex with sketchy people who later reveal themselves to be vile dishonorable creeps, but it happens.

Don't blame the victims.

I grew up in a world where when a relationship ended badly you gave back the Polaroids.

There are naked pics of me in the deepest archives of the internet. Fortunately none are associated with my name, and it's not like anyone these days is searching for 256 X 256 pixel naked pics.

But damn, I was hot.

If I ever run for public office it won't be the naked pics that ruin me, it will be my posts on Democratic Underground.

May bare naked body ain't so bad. My bare naked soul is a horror show.

[oldsoftie]

58. I always hope God is saying "Bravo!"

[hunter]

64. There you are at the Pearly Gates, Saint Peter checking his computer...

... when he exclaims, "Oh yeah, I remember you!"

[oldsoftie]

76. LOL!

[tonedevil]

5. Looks like the pro revenge porn folks are weighing in on this thread already. /nt

[CrackityJones75]

13. Not my intent.

I think it is beyond sick and wrong. But I do think there are probably already laws on the books that cover this.

And they should be used to protect people!

[tonedevil]

17. From what I have read previously...

and the case from this OP I would say that is an incorrect assumption.

[CrackityJones75]

57. What is incorrect?

There are laws on the books about recording against someone’s knowledge. If someone gave someone else images and didn’t have some agreement in place that those images wouldn’t be shared with someone else... Well they are shit out of luck really.

It is awful that someone would use that to damage someone else. But thats why you don’t share images with people like that. If it was used to blackmail and get something from someone that would be extortion or bribery.

Otherwise if someone gives you something. Anything really, You are saying that the person that gave it to you has the right to tell you how you may use it. Forever. Even without an agreement?

It sucks but again without an agreement in place how do you expect to hold people accountable?

[edhopper]

38. There was a law in CA

the judge overturned it.

[Hortensis]

10. Not agreeing, but Porter was/is a public figure. Not a private individual.

There's a big legal difference.

One she should have been extremely aware of. They never got hold of nude pictures of Hillary, but she shouldn't have needed that literal a lesson to know in her bones that the Republicans will do anything to take out Democratic politicians. She was warmed by concerned colleagues.

[Escurumbele]

52. The photos were taken in aa private setting, she trusted her husband, she did not know the guy is a

dickhead, and a coward.

[Hortensis]

73. Unfortunate, but they were his photos and he gave them to her opponents.

However, they would have brought her down with something else because she was careless n other areas of both her private affairs and as a congresswoman.

The genuine issue was the serious ethical violations regarding the sexual misconduct of a person of power involving two of her employees.

Note the trouble both Cuomo and Franken were/are in, and none of the allegations of sexual misconduct against them even approached intercourse.

[Fla Dem]

54. Does the law exclude private citizens from revenge porn?

Free speech is free speech.

Are you saying this only applies to those in the public arena???

So if Joe Smore publishes a porn picture of Mary Nobody, then that would not be allowed?

[Layzeebeaver]

14. How a person chooses to express themselves in private

Should never be allowed to be published in public without their express permission except in cases of illegal activity where the information is used in a court of law.

[brooklynite]

18. So if I take a picture of people on the sidewalk...

...I can't post it to my Twitter feed without getting a release from everyone in the picture?

Link to tweet

[ret5hd]

22. Huhhh...the person you replied to specifically stated "in private".

Everyone knows what you do in public is "in public". But you are claiming that if a houseguest surreptitiously snapped a pic of you in your birthday suit then published it...free game.

[TheBlackAdder]

47. Eleventh Circuit (Smith v. Cumming) for details on what is 'traditional public fora'.

[Under The Radar]

20. It is even legal for someone to tape and release a conversation

...With you that you never knew was recorded...ie Linda Tripp recording Monica Lewinski that got Bill Clinton impeached.

[PoliticAverse]

65. Were Tripp's Tapes Illegal?

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/1998/07/were-tripp-s-tapes-illegal.html

[Lancero]

78. In most states, yes.

Single party consent is, in many states, all that is necessary for a interaction to be recorded.

[StClone]

21. Your face as a public figure is "public" your privates shouldn't be.

This may be apples and oranges but, if you publicly donate money (it's been ruled money is Free Speech) does that then give that charity access to all your money?

[Under The Radar]

23. Is it fair to bring up Brett Kavenaugh's past actions from his youth in a confirmation hearing?

I think that he believes those things were private too.
Matt Gaetz likely hated that his payments to girls for sex were private despite being visible on a public forum. And the pictures of those nude girls being shown to US congressmen, and we will likely see compromising photos of Matt before this is over.
Donald Trump spends a lot of money keeping his “private” relationships private.
Politicians don’t like the fact that what they say in private meets if gets leaked to the public or press but it isn’t illegal when it happens, but it is slander if proven untrue. So basically nothing is private if someone else knows and it is legal if they wish to tell someone else.

[StClone]

24. Is their hypocrisy public or private?

[Under The Radar]

26. If someone else knows about it isn't private, hypocrisy or not.

[Hekate]

51. What Kavanaugh and Gaetz did was illegal. Trump, too. Big difference. But boys will be boys....nt

[oldsoftie]

60. Might as well add in Cuomo to the list since there's plenty against him

[Hassin Bin Sober]

74. Mitt Romney made his "47%" speech at a private club where there was supposed to be no recording.

[SYFROYH]

19. Weren't the pictures validation for the claim of an affair that violated congressional ethics rules?

It might be enough that she is a public figure - an elected official, but it was evidence of misconduct that she denied which makes it doubly newsworthy?

[unblock]

27. here's my theory: nude pictures are obviously private and confidential,

and should be legally treated as such unless an explicit release is given.

any romantic partner who takes or is given such a picture knows (or as a reasonable person, should know) that the picture is given in the understanding that it would be kept private and confidential, again unless an explicit release is given.


i think this should be protected by legislation, but i think a court could find that an implied contract exists regardless, that is, it is effectively subject to an implied non-disclosure agreement.


being a public figure does not release someone from this. the public doesn't have any compelling legal interest in nude photos of people without their consent, even if they are public figures.


frankly i can't believe there's debate on this and i really, really can't believe people are blaming the victim.

[Kaleva]

30. One could work to get such a law passed.

[crickets]

31. 👆 This.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

35. Her problem is with the person she confided in to take and keep the photos.

Once it gets in the hands of the media, and I use the term loosely, all bets are off. Especially when it comes to a public person.

That’s just the way it has to be. That goes for Donal Trump’s hokey “non disclosure agreements” and a certain prominent woman’s illegally obtained emails (I’m talking about Sarah Palin’s yahoo mail that was hacked )

[unblock]

44. i recognize that that's the way it *is*, but not the way it has to be.

if information is of a purely prurient nature, it's not in the public interest and there's no reason to violate a person's reasonable expectation of privacy and confidentiality even if it's a public figure.

if there's a legitimate newsworthy aspect, then that can be balanced against the privacy rights (which are somewhat less for a public figure, but it's not zero).

afaik, there's nothing newsworthy about these photos other than that haha, she's nekkid. that's prurient interest only and not newsworthy.

any reasonable person should know it's private and confidential and should respect that. particularly journalists.


a public figure's private emails that show them abusing their office or something like that is entirely different. there's a legitimate public interest in that situation, so the balance tips towards allowing the disclosure.

[FBaggins]

82. Except that there IS something newsworthy about the photos

That was the whole point of the ruling.

The congresswoman was accused of having an affair with a subordinate/staffer in violation of House ethics rules. Photos demonstrating such a relationship are certainly newsworthy (though I would hope that a better news organization would blur out some parts of the photos).

[meadowlander]

70. If she was a corporation that shared commerciallly sensitive information with a subcontractor

and the subcontractor later got pissed off and published it all online, we wouldn't have a thread full of smarmy "well that's what you get for sharing sensitive information" posts. The First Amendment wouldn't even come into it.

Could we extend the same legal and ethical protections to women that we extend to corporations? I know it's a big ask, but JFC!

[unblock]

80. Well if I'm the business would, NDAs are routine

And such matters would be covered by explicit non-disclosure agreements.

The problem is they are not the norm in romantic relationships. it's an obvious implicit understanding.

[ShazzieB]

84. Hear, hear!

What is it with all these gross pro revenge posts anyway? Enough already.

[Hekate]

28. My gods, what a thread. You guys carry on & I'll slowly back away before I lose my breakfast...

This judge’s ruling is right down there with: “You consented to get raped when you walked in that bar. Dear.”

[Luciferous]

32. Yeah, there are a LOT of disgusting comments in this thread.

[MuseRider]

34. Yup and it is sickening.

I can hardly believe it.....dear. Wow that "dear" was the frosting on the shit cake.

[demmiblue]

36. +1

[SunSeeker]

63. +2

[LanternWaste]

75. +1 Yeah... it's pretty damned revealing (and not in a good way)

Creepy people are celebrating a win for revenge porn (as are a few righteous ones too... just in case someone feels oppressed by inferring "creepy" refers to them).

[PoliticAverse]

67. Judge Yolanda Orozco is a Democrat. n/t

[msfiddlestix]

68. I miss- read and thought it was a Supreme Court of the United States decision

I'm going to self delete my post.

[JuJuChen]

40. stop sending nudes, problem solved

[tonedevil]

45. Victim blaming achievement unlocked. /nt

[Kaleva]

87. It's akin to blaming gun owners shot by their legally owned gun.

Some here are quick to blame the victim (the gun owner).

Another instance is where some here laugh at those who didn't lock their doors or had left the key to their vehicle in the ignition and they are robbed or there car is stolen.

[tonedevil]

96. The gun owner is a poor example...

a gun is a tool for killing. Since that is the case, it must be handled very strictly. If someone owns a gun and they Mishandle it they are to blame. There is no such thing as an accident with a gun there is only negligence.
Leaving a door unlocked and someone taking advantage of that is a much closer fit. Asking what a rape victim was wearing is on a par as well.

[Skittles]

62. or at least leave your face out of them

[Kaleva]

86. Yes.

[Skittles]

97. I think people are being very naive

people can change, and very often do

and photos can be hacked, stolen

[Kaleva]

104. It's common sense

There's a lot of things we can do that are perfectly legal but most of us don't because the of the possible consequences.

[obamanut2012]

89. Quit victim blaming

[hunter]

46. Revenge porn holds the Republican Party together.

It's been that way since J. Edgar Hoover.

If there are no secret photos of you behaving badly, you can't be a Republican leader.

You do not want to see the Mike Pence file...

[LiberalFighter]

48. Any photos of the judge? His wife? His daughters?

[PoliticAverse]

72. The judge is a she not a he and is a Democrat. n/t

[bucolic_frolic]

49. Two thoughts

Copyright law is at issue here? Though there are exceptions to taking pictures of people without their knowledge, generally speaking doesn't copyright belong to the photographer?

I wonder how many critical decisions in the world have been decided by blackmailing someone over something like naked photos.

He who controls the dirt controls the world, and is not likely to let go easily.

[Sgent]

100. The photographer

was her (now ex) husband; although given CA law she might own 1/2. She might have done better to file a copyright infringement suit rather than a revenge porn suit against the media outlets (the suit against the husband she will probably win).

[Calista241]

53. Technically, they didn't publish it, her ex-husband did that

And he's the one subject to liability under the law. As long as Redstate wasn't involved in the hacking / theft of the pictures, then they're in the clear.

I don't know why Katie resigned her seat, and I wonder if she'll consider running again.

[Scrivener7]

55. Yet another thread full of vile right wing posts. Right up there with the

"but white people get shot too" thread.

What the fuck is going on around here??

[Blue_Adept]

59. The continued calcification of DU

There used to be a lot of very diverse groups on DU that had very active subsections. But they were all largely run off in the runup to 2016.

This place has calcified immensely since then. It's a shadow of what it once was.

[fescuerescue]

69. +1 I'm continually fascinated about some of the group psychology that goes on here

From that perspective, it's one of the more interesting forums on the Internet.

[obamanut2012]

88. Yup, victim blaming, supporting JK Rowling's TERF views

Semen swallowing "jokes" about women (I don't care if it's GOP women), rants about trans folks, especially kids.

It goes on and on and on and has gotten even worse.

I have my theory, but I don't feel like being dogpiled and alerted on, so...

[Scrivener7]

92. My favorite was the hijacking of the thread about killings of black people by cops

to talk about how school shootings mostly get white people.

I don't know where I am anymore.

[obamanut2012]

99. Good lord, I somehow missed that

[Scrivener7]

93. PM me your theory, because I am at a loss here.

[Nululu]

56. Evil and horrendous

[czarjak]

61. "Any means necessary"

[PoliticAverse]

66. "a partisan blog ... was exercising their first amendment right"

The first amendment certainly applies to blogs whether partisan or not.
The extent of what is covered by the first amendment (and copyright law) is something the courts have struggled with...

Courts in several states have upheld "revenge porn" laws.

Ultimately the US Supreme court will have to weigh in on the issue. One of the criteria they would likely use is that of "public interest".

[PoliticAverse]

71. "Judge Yolanda Orozco ruled that ... the photos were matters of legitimate interest"

A judge Wednesday dealt Katie Hill another legal blow by dismissing Salem Media Group as a defendant in the former congresswoman’s revenge porn lawsuit alleging nude photos of her were published without her permission.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Yolanda Orozco ruled that Salem Media, owner of the conservative blog RedState.com, had shown that the photos were matters of legitimate interest involving a public official because they addressed Hill’s character and qualifications for her position.

RedState.com published one article in October 2019 with a link to a photograph of Hill brushing a female worker’s hair. The blog maintained the photo did not depict any “intimate body part” of Hill and argued that Hill’s actions called into question her character and ability to continue as a representative in American government.

Read the rest at: https://mynewsla.com/crime/2021/04/21/judge-deals-former-congresswoman-another-legal-defeat-in-revenge-porn-suit/

[FBaggins]

77. This isn't "uncharted legal territory" and the judge didn't rule that revenge porn is 1A protected

The husband is still a defendant in the case. He's the one who took and distributed the images.

If that was to some porn website this ruling would say nothing at all. All the judge's ruling says is that a news organization can run the photos when they're matters of legitimate public interest - which they were.

The only "uncharted legal territory" is the fanciful claim that an image demonstrating an ethical violation of House rules should be protected from news coverage if it's embarrassing enough.

[kcr]

83. It's her ex she needs to go after on the revenge porn charge

You're right. I think it's a misleading headline. The judge did not protect revenge porn. A free press is important.

[fescuerescue]

98. Few people ever read past the headline

And the headline is usually a point of view of the ruling...not the actual ruling.

Almost every single time you see a sensationalist headline about a judges ruling...then read the actual ruling there is a wide gulf.

[FBaggins]

103. Exactly correct... and this isn't even really a headline

It's her own PR spin to influence public opinion. (likely not even to impact the case, but to boost her chances of getting elected again).

[Sgent]

101. Since CA is a community property state

wouldn't she have a joint interest in the photo if it was taken at the time of marriage? Could she have sued for copyright violation?

[dlk]

81. The First Amendment does not protect all speech in all circumstances

This judge should have known better.

[Kaleva]

85. There isn't much that is prohibited

"Certain speech or acts receive limited or no First Amendment protections, such as obscenity, child pornography, threats of violence, and speech that incites riots, violence, or insurrection."

https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/inciting-to-riot-violence-or-insurrection.html

With the Brandenburg v. Ohio decision in 1969, it's legal to yell fire in a crowded theater as that is considered speech protected by the 1st Admendement.

[dlk]

91. True

However, this ruling codifies misogyny under the guise of free speech. There never seems to be a shortage of women-haters.

[BGBD]

90. Essentially

If you consent to both the sex and the pictures and allow another person to possess them, then you no longer have any assumption of privacy regarding them. That of course could be changed with some kind of ND document for them.

So if a guy wants some sexy pics get him to sign a non disclosure first. And also...can you enforce a non-compete clause in a dating contract?

[Vinca]

94. Better yet, if a guy wants some sexy pics, tell him to fuck off.

[BGBD]

95. yup

[DontBelieveEastisEas]

102. non-compete clause

Man, why didn't I think of that!