CONGRESSWOMAN KATIE HILL IN HER
LAWSUIT OVER LEAKED NUDE IMAGES.
ON WEDNESDAY, A CALIFORNIA JUDGE
RULED THAT THE "DAILY MAIL" DID
NOT BREAK STATE LAW BY
PUBLISHING A NUDE PHOTO OF HER
WITHOUT HER CONSENT.
THOSE PHOTOS WERE DEEMED A
MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST AND
THEREFORE PROTECTED BY THE FIRST
AMENDMENT.
IN RESPONSE, MISS HILL TWEETED,
QUOTE, TODAY WE LOST IN COURT
BECAUSE A JUDGE, NOT A JURY,
THINKS REVENGE PORN IS FREE
SPEECH, UNQUOTE.
SHE SAYS SHE WILL APPEAL THE
DECISION AND SAYS THIS CASE
AFFECTS ANY WOMAN WHO PLANS TO
RUN FOR OFFICE.
THIS CASE MAY BE THE MOST
HIGH-PROFILE IN RECENT MEMORY,
BUT HER EXPERIENCE IS
UNFORTUNATELY NOT UNIQUE.
ONE STUDY FOUND THAT 1 IN 25
AMERICANS HAS FACED OR BEEN
THREATENED WITH THE RELEASE OF
NON-CONSENSUAL NUDE IMAGES.
FORMER CALIFORNIA CONGRESSMAN
KATIE HILL JOINS US NOW.
MISS HILL, GOOD EVENING.
>> HI.
THANKS FOR HAVING ME.
>> FIRST OF ALL, HOW ARE YOU
AFTER THIS RULING?
I’M SURE THAT THIS BROUGHT UP
THE ENTIRE SITUATION THAT
HAPPENED WITH YOU AND THE PHOTOS
AND THAT CAN’T BE EASY.
>> YEAH, I APPRECIATE YOU
ASKING.
IT’S DEFINITELY NOT EASY AND
IT’S REALLY TOUGH FOR ANYONE WHO
DECIDES TO BRING LITIGATION
FORWARD, BECAUSE YOU DON’T KNOW
WHAT IT’S GOING TO LEAD TO.
WE KNEW GOING INTO THIS THAT
THIS IS UNCHARTED TERRITORY.
THAT, YOU KNOW, THE REVENGE
PORN -- THE ANTI-REVENGE PORN
STATUTE, THAT IS FRAGMENTS AND
IS -- YOU KNOW, IT’S IN 48
DIFFERENT STATES AND TERRITORIES
NOW, BUT THERE IS NOT A SINGLE
UNIFORM LAW THAT GOES ACROSS --
THAT’S A FEDERAL STATUTE.
SO IT -- WE KNEW THAT WE WERE
GOING TO BE REALLY TESTING THIS
AND SAYING THAT REVENGE PORN IN
ZERO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD BE OF
THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND SHOULD
BE FREE SPEECH.
BUT UNFORTUNATELY, CALIFORNIA,
WE WERE BASICALLY DISMISSED.
THE JUDGE DISMISSED THE CASE IN
AN EARLY STAGE BEFORE IT WAS
EVER ABLE TO GO TO TRIAL OR
BEFORE IT WAS EVER ABLE TO GO TO
THE FULL PROCESS OF LITIGATION,
BASED ON THIS NOTION THAT IT WAS
A FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUE.
SO IT’S TOUGH.
IT SUCKS AND IT’S SOMETHING THAT
I FEEL LIKE I HAVE TO CONTINUE
THIS FOR, BECAUSE MOST VICTIMS
DO NOT HAVE THE ABILITY OR THE
RESOURCES TO DO SO, AND IT HAS
SUCH BIG IMPLICATIONS FOR ANY
WOMAN WHO WANTS TO RUN FOR
OFFICE AND ANY WOMAN WHO HAS A
POTENTIALLY POWERFUL VOICE OR IS
IN A POWERFUL POSITION MOVING
FORWARD.
>> LET’S SEPARATE IN PART THE
NEXT AMENDMENT ISSUE.
THERE’S THE FIRST AMENDMENT
ISSUE, WHICH HAS TO DO WITH,
FIRST OF ALL, NOT EVERYTHING IS
PROTECTED OR ALLOWED UNDER THE
FIRST AMENDMENT, BUT THE
ARGUMENT FOR PROTECTING THESE
PICTURES, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IS
THAT THERE’S A PREVAILING PUBLIC
INTEREST IN KNOWING ABOUT PUBLIC
OFFICIALS, PUBLIC FIGURES THAT
IS DIFFERENT FROM THIS FIRST
AMENDMENT LAW THAT OFFERS SOME
LATITUDE WHEN IT COMES TO PUBLIC
OFFICIALS AND THAT THAT IS PART
OF WHAT AT LEAST IN THE COURT’S
VIEW, WOULD ALLOW THESE PICTURES
TO BE PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD.
THEY MAY BE UNSEEMLY, BUT
THEY’RE RELEVANT AS IT RELATES
TO AN ELECTED OFFICIAL?
HOW DO YOU PUSH BACK ON THAT IN
TERMS OF WHERE IN YOUR VIEW,
WHERE THE LINE SHOULD BE?
>> THE PHOTOS WERE ILLEGALLY
SHARED AND ILLEGALLY OBTAINED,
BASED ON THE REVENGE PORN LAWS,
BASED ON THE ANTI-CYBER
EXPLOITATION LAWS.
THE FACTS THAT CAME OUT.
THE FACTS THAT WERE REPORTED ON
BY EVERY SINGLE MAJOR NEWS
OUTLET, INCLUDING MSNBC, WERE
FAIR GAME.
I’M NOT GOING TO ARGUE THAT FOR
A SECOND AND EVERY OUTLET
DID.
BUT THEY DIDN’T SHOW THE PHOTOS.
THEY DIDN’T NEED TO SHOW THE
PHOTOS.
THE PHOTOS WERE GRATUITOUS AND
THEY WERE DONE SIMPLY FOR CLICK
BAIT AND FOR HUMILIATION.
AND THAT’S THE POINT THAT WE’RE
TRYING TO MAKE.
IT SHOULD BE -- YOU KNOW, IF
WE’RE SETTING THIS PRECEDENT
THAT THIS IS OKAY, IF THAT MEANS
THAT ANY WOMAN WHO RUNS FOR
OFFICE -- AND I’M SAYING WOMEN,
BECAUSE IT’S LARGELY AN ISSUE
THAT IMPACTS WOMEN.
90% OF VICTIMS OF THIS ARE
WOMEN.
BUT WE KNOW THAT THIS -- WHERE
DO WE DECIDE THAT THE PUBLIC
INTEREST LIES?
IS THIS SOMETHING THAT ANY
CANDIDATE, IT CAN BE SAID IS IN
THE PUBLIC INTEREST?
WHAT ABOUT A WOMAN WHO’S RUNNING
FOR A COLLEGE-LEVEL SEAT ON HER
STUDENT COUNCIL AND A BLOG, YOU
KNOW, A PARTISAN BLOG IS A NEWS
OUTLET, ACCORDING TO THIS?
IT’S JUST, THERE’S NO
LIMITATIONS AROUND IT.
AND THAT CAN’T BE ACCEPTABLE OR
IT WILL BE SUCH A CHILLING
EFFECT ON WOMEN WHO ARE WILLING
TO RUN, BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT
THEY HAVE AN EVENTUAL EX OUT
THERE OR THEY HAVE ANY KIND OF A
HISTORY WHATSOEVER.
AND THAT’S NOT WHAT WE WANT
WITHIN OUR REPRESENTATIVE
OFFICES -- OR WITHIN
REPRESENTATION.
>> LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT
CONGRESSMAN GAETZ.
HE WROTE A PIECE FOR "VANITY
FAIR" ABOUT YOUR FORMER
COLLEAGUE.
HE WAS ONE OF THE ONLY MEMBERS
OF THE HOUSE TO DEFENSE YOU BACK
IN 2019.
ON TOP OF OTHER ALLEGATIONS,
THERE ARE REPORTS THAT HE HAS
SHOWN AT LEAST TWO LAWMAKERS
PICTURES AND VIDEOS OF NUDE
WOMEN.
THAT’S REPORTED BY ANOTHER NEWS
ORGANIZATION, I SHOULD NOTE.
YOU WRITE, QUOTE, IF TRUE, MATT
HAD ENGAGED IN THE VERY PRACTICE
HE DEFENDED ME FROM, UNQUOTE.
WHAT IS YOUR SENSE OF THIS
STORY?
I FEEL LIKE I AS A JOURNALIST
NEED TO TREAD SUPER CAREFULLY
WITH THIS STORY, BECAUSE THERE’S
A LOT WE DON’T KNOW AND VERY
LITTLE THAT WE HAVE HARD
FACTUALLY CONFIRMED ABOUT WHAT’S
WHAT.
BUT FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE, AS
SOMEONE WHO’S BEEN THROUGH THIS
ON A DIFFERENT PERSONAL LEVEL,
HOW DO YOU SEE IT?
>> I SEE IT AS, WE -- BASED ON
THE OTHER REPORTING, THERE ARE
MULTIPLE DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS
WHO HAVE CONFIRMED THAT THE
PHOTOS WERE SHARED ON THE HOUSE
FLOOR.
I HAVE A HUGE ISSUE WITH THE
PEOPLE WHO CONFIRMED THAT
INFORMATION, BUT NEVER WENT TO
HOUSE ETHICS, AND INSTEAD
ANONYMOUSLY GAVE IT TO
REPORTERS.
POTENTIALLY YEARS AFTER HE DID
THAT.
BUT THAT SHOWS YOU TO ME THAT
WOMEN REMAIN UNVALUED.
OUR BODIES REMAIN NOT OURS.
THEY ARE, YOU KNOW, THEY’RE SEEN
AS EITHER SOMETHING THAT WE CAN
BE SHAMED FOR OR SOMETHING THAT
WE CAN BE -- BE USED AS BOASTING
RIGHTS OR AS BRAGGING RIGHTS BY
MEN IN SEXUAL CONQUEST.
AND I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW,
THAT -- THE FACT THAT THAT’S
HAPPENING ON THE HOUSE FLOOR AND
THAT NO ONE WHO SAW IT, NO ONE
WHO WITNESSED IT CAME FORWARD
AND REPORTED IT AT THE TIME THAT
IT HAPPENED IS A TESTAMENT TO
THE FACT THAT THIS NEEDS TO BE
SEEN AS A CRIME ACROSS THE
ENTIRE COUNTRY.
AND UNTIL IT IS -- AND THAT’S
THE REASON THEY STARTED THE
ORGANIZATION THAT I FOUNDED LAST
YEAR IS PUSHING SO HARD FOR A
CRIMINAL STATUTE THAT
CRIMINALIZES REVENGE PORN ACROSS
THE ENTIRE COUNTRY.
UNTIL THAT HAPPENS, I DON’T
THINK WE’LL SEE TRUE PROGRESS ON
THIS SHALL AND IT MEANS SO MUCH