Congresswoman Katie Hill didn’t have to resign, but she did. She had not been found guilty of sexual impropriety, although the House Ethics Committee had launched a formal investigation into whether the married California representative had engaged in an affair with a congressional staffer.
Hill denied the affair with her male staff member but after intimate photographs of the openly bi-sexual politician and a former female campaign worker surfaced Hill took to the airwaves to defend herself. She revealed she was embroiled in a nasty divorce and that her private e-mails and the photos had been leaked by “my abusive husband who seems determined to humiliate me.” Hill’s husband denies the charge.
This case raises a lot of issues including the ever-increasing lack of due process before someone is driven from their chosen career. But at its core, this is about one person (whoever that might have been) seeking to damage another by releasing nude, sexually explicit photos on the internet. While there is no federal law against this so-called “revenge porn” it is now illegal in 46 states.
Sound like progress, right? Not so fast. Even though about a half dozen states consider revenge porn cases to be a felony most state laws are weak. The crime is usually categorized as misdemeanor “harassment” and not the obvious and most devastatingly personal “invasion of privacy.” This hardly makes sense.
Think of it this way. Courts have ruled you have a constitutionally protected right to privacy, the right to, literally, be left alone. There are stringent laws in this country that forbid, among other things, the unauthorized release of your medical records or your social security information. If someone uses an electronic device or long-range camera to eavesdrop on or photograph you in your home that is an invasion of your privacy. So why would someone who causes a person’s most intimate moments to be posted in perpetuity for all the world to see any less blameworthy for invasion of privacy?
The perpetrator can be a spurned lover who wants revenge on a former partner. Could be a stranger hacking into random women’s accounts looking for salacious materials to sell to porn sites. To me the perp’s motive doesn’t really matter. It is that the name of the victim is also released along with the photos, clearly proof that . someone’s constitutional right to has been violated.
Yes, the victim can go through a lengthy and expensive process of filing a civil suit against the culprit. Some of these have ended with multimillion-dollar judgments against the defendant but these awards often go uncollected because ex-boyfriends don’t usually have millions in the bank. Wouldn’t it be better, in the public’s best interest, if these cases were tried in criminal court where the accused, if convicted, could be locked away from their destructive keyboards for a significant period of time?
Realize, these disclosures are not photos of a former partner simply looking fat in a bathing suit. These are photos of someone naked, with exposed genitalia or engaged in sex acts. You can ask why anyone would allow themselves to be filmed that way, but some victims are totally unaware that there was a camera in the room. And, that question is really beside the point.
The reality is that this type material haunts the exposed person every single day. When they apply for a loan or a job or a new apartment they can reasonably expect to have their name run through a Google Search and presto! the unauthorized pornography pops up. Really vindictive types send the porn to a victim’s family, their co-workers and neighbors.
According to a Data and Society Research Institute study some 10 million Americans, mostly women, have either been threatened with or become victims of revenge porn. It has happened to unsuspecting teenagers, female members of our military, countless celebrities and otherwise anonymous citizens. The humiliation is excruciating.
Former Congresswoman Hill has vowed to return to her home state of California and become active in a renewed campaign against revenge porn. Some of the biggest legal victories against this scourge have occurred in that state.
Last April, a former law student won a $6.45 million U.S. District Court judgment against an ex-boyfriend who posted her intimate photos and videos after they broke up. He also posed as her on erotic dating sites resulting in a rash of unwanted texts from strange men. In 2015, the operator of a notorious porn site and a hacker he hired to illegally search for salacious photos pleaded guilty to federal criminal charges in California. Both the operator and the hacker were sentenced to more than two years in prison.
I hope Ms. Hill is serious about her intentions to do something about the tactic used to bring her down. I’d suggest she start by urging California lawmakers to make facilitating or posting revenge porn an automatic felony. That would be a good place to start.
###
Reader Fred Tee writes:
Diane Diamond:
Your article titled, “Make it an automatic felony” is really sick and twisted.
Let a Congresswoman like Katie Hill be exposed in a sex act with a man or woman outside her marriage with her career destroyed and it is considered “revenge porn.” But let a Congressman be so exposed, and it would be called “sexual assault” by a man taking advantage of his “position of power.”
Your disgusting double standard is typical of the “me-too” witchhunters.”
DD replies to Mr. Tee:
Wow. Of course, I completely disagree with you. I would be totally against a man falling victim to revenge porne as well as a woman. As for an elected official being caught up in a sex scandal – – think Bill Clinton think Wilbur Mills think Gary Hart and now think Katie Hill — Well, let the chips fall where they may. Public opinion will decide whether they should be drummed out of office or not.
Revenge porn is a completely different topic. It is illegal in nearly every state. My column simply stated that the punishment should be more severe given what it does to the victim’s life.
I believe your quick condemnation of me was completely unwarranted. Nonetheless, I will post your comment on my website so your thoughts can be shared far and wide .
Mr. Tee replies to DD:
Ms. Dimond:
Bill Clinton was photographed and published with Monica’s semen-stained blue dress. So was Wilbur Mills with Fanne Fox in a limo near the DC Tidal Basin. So was Gary Hart with Donna Rice sitting in his lap on the yacht, “Monkey Business”.
You claim, those who published these sexcapades should be charged with an ‘automatic felony?”
Ooops, these were not published as “revenge porn?” Are you certain? Talk about a double standard.
Please post my comment, with the above, as widely as you can.
Fred Tee
DD replies to Mr. Tee once again:
No. I do not consider a split screen photo of a fully clothed Bill Clinton on one side and the empty semen stained dress on another as “revenge porn”. Nor were the photos of the fully clothed Wilbur Mills, Fannie Fox, Gary Hart or Donna Rice “Revenge Porn.” No. the media that published those photos should NOT be slapped with an “automatic felony.” Yes, I am sure about that. Very sure.
You have twisted my words and present a convoluted arguement.
I invite you to look up the actual definition of “Revenge Porn” Here is a link to one which reads: “Revealing or sexually explicit images or videos of a person posted on the Internet, typically by a former sexual partner, without the consent of the subject and in order to cause them distress or embarrassment.”
An article about the state law in California, Ms. Hill’s home state, can be found here. But I can break it down for purposes of this discussion. Unlawful distribution of Revenge Porn is defined as any photograph posted on the internet that show an intimate body part and….
…….. “the term “intimate body part” means any portion of the genitals, the anus, and in the case of a female, also includes any portion of the breasts below the top of the areola, that is either uncovered or clearly visible through clothing.” (Cal. Penal Code § 647(j)(4)(C).)”
I think you’ll admit that the photos you mentioned of Clinton, Mills and Hart did not come close to showing “genitals, the anus or parts of a female breast below the top of the areola.” You have simply mixed up your definitions. Thanks for writing.
Reader Juan Garcia writes:
Diane:
I read your editorial. Couple of things. Ms Hill allowed herself to pose in compromising situations. I will assume it was consensual between her and the photographer. She had an alleged illicit relationship with a subordinate. Maybe two. She knew it was wrong. McDonald’s CEO had an alleged illicit affair with an employee and he was terminated. No drama . No sexual preferences blamed. No gender issues. No playing the victim card. Case closed.
Reader Bill Voinovich writes:
Actually, when you boil it all down, the ones doing the posting are quite immature & childish..
They’re SUPPOSED to be adults, and be able to deal with pretty much anything, but THAT is their only response to their situation??? That’s the BEST they could do??
Reader Mo Gonzalez writes:
This is a low life. Should have never been elected into office. /// Consider this a whistle blower and should be protected.
Reader Harvey Gilmore writes:
Where’s #metoo???
Reader Savannah Silver writes:
Not much more to say, I have always warned my daughter its all good until it goes wrong then you find out exactly who someone is, Revenge Porn is a Terrorist act usually against a woman which is equal to rape, the physical and emotional devastation is parallel.
Reader Michael Katz writes:
If you don’t want them to get out don’t do the photo shoot. Seems pretty simple to me.