Are recent court rulings against former House member Katie Hill consistent with free-speech precedents?
Recent rulings by a Los Angeles County judge against former Congresswoman Katie Hill cited various precedents for free speech protections in denying her claims arising from the publication of her nude photos that were published without her consent.
Hill sued Britain’s Daily Mail and Red State, a conservative political blog, arguing that they violated California’s revenge-porn law by publishing the photographs. The court ruled in favor of the publishers, finding that her conduct in office was a subject of public interest and that her suits violated a state law banning actions infringing free speech known as an anti-SLAPP law (for “strategic lawsuits against public participation”).
The ruling cited multiple prior decisions which relied on the protections afforded media by the anti-SLAPP law.
