Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2020/12/22/former-rep-katie-hill-sues-ex-husband-daily-mail-redstate-for-nonconsensual-porn.html
…
The new legislation here calls this “image based sexual abuse”.
Doubt she’ll get far, but I’d be thrilled to see her get a pound of flesh out of any and all of the above.
Considering that Gawker was sued out of existence for something related, she might get pretty far.
Her relationships with staffers were definitely questionable, but even from the little “evidence” her ex offered it looks like he might be the one encouraging the behavior.
The whole business with the iron cross (claiming it’s a nazi tattoo) was nothing more than cover for a way to shame her with nude pics. There’s no swaztica, just an iron cross. Smoking out of a bong? Ohhh no. (/s)
One thing for sure, her ex was no straight forward highly moral whistle blower. The publishers could have followed up and focused on the staffers and their perspective. Instead they focused on the tawdry details from her ex? Her ex wasn’t the one put in a terrible position, it was her staffers after all.
It seems like her ex was just pissed he lost his magical three-way when she left him and is shaming her in retribution for behavior he probably encouraged. Her behavior was inexcusable, but a pissy and abusive ex is not the source of impartial information for a story like this.
Peter Theil, et al, are on the other side of this case, and money, alone, is “Free Speech”.
Irrelevant. Does not justify releasing those images, at all.
No. He was merely trying to shame her into silence. More men trying to control women.
He is very much the bad guy here, sorry. Women not being all like Amy Coney Barrett doesn’t justify releasing nude pics of them. We’re human beings in our own right, not handmaids to men with no agency of our own.
Try starting from the premise that women are entitled to privacy in their sexual relations and with regards to their bodies, not that our bodies are subject to being used against us when we aren’t perfect little stepford wives who don’t challenge male authority.
I didn’t imply that releasing the images was justified, exactly the opposite. Her ex was the one who used the supposed “nazi symbol” as the justification and clearly that’s a cover for some shitty
Behavior on his behalf.
I think we can agree sex and relationships with staffers (subordinates) is definitely inappropriate in terms of power plays. I agree that this was an issue that should have been handled in courts if required, not “tabloids”.
And is a completely different issue from this lawsuit.
I’m guessing that this happens ALL THE TIME among her male colleagues, and when it’s uncovered, they generally get little more than censure, if that. She got kicked out of congress. It’s a double standard, because women are routinely held to higher standards then men.
Of course the lawsuits is a different issue from the publishing of the pics. I wasn’t conflating the two, just pointing out that it was a wholly dysfunctional relationship probably encouraged by her ex and both him the press used that info to lend credence to their story. Of course it happens “all of the time”. Regardless, whether it’s a man or woman, sex with subordinates is deplorable. In the Democratic Party it usually me dismissal. We can all just ask Al Franken how it plays out and he didn’t even have sex with anyone.
Sounds like she may have been emboldened by her fairly recent consultation with an expert on the “How To! With Charles Duhigg” podcast…?
This is likely a very incomplete list of extramarital affairs in congress, largely male people in power. I’m guessing there’s a lot of indiscretions captured on film, but for some reason they chose to show a lot of Hill, and just a few congressmen with their shirts off. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States
That was my first thought too. If there can be justice for the rather unsavory Terry Bollea but not for this woman, I’ll be forced to think that maybe our vaunted system of justice might be flawed (/s and whatever /tone mark registers anticipatory disgust over my fear that she won’t get justice).
You could be right. Perhaps disgust will fuel the necessary changes to respond to this. I firmly believe image based sexual abuse should be a crime . The legislation was sitting shelved for years until a mass spreading event occurred (via discord servers I believe) and then, to be fair on our legislators in both houses, the initial legislation from a minority party member got taken up by women from all sides responding to courageous and brilliant activists and went through months of work in DAYS. Inspiring to see.
It’s not that long ago that married women couldn’t be legally held to be raped by their husbands. Horrifying as that concept is. The law has hundreds, I’d not thousands of years of practice by and for men. But it is changing and will be changed
It’s a long way from caught up with reality though.
Let’s not even talk about getting convictions for rapists
The issue isn’t really about her behavior, in this case. That’s a separate issue with regards to the lawsuit.
And men, up until pretty recently, get away with it on the regular. And in many cases still do.
I agree and it’s not acceptable. But you seem to be under the impression that how it’s treated in the court of public opinion is anywhere near the same. It’s not, though that’s changing.
Okay.
This. What happened to Katie Hill is most certainly sexual abuse. What she did was not acceptable either, but that doesn’t mean she should not sue the shit out of her ex and the papers that had the images.
And it’s still hard to prove in courts, too. And whether or not it’s taken seriously is going to depend on the judge that you get.
I really wish people would stop assuming that men and women are treated as equals in our society, when it’s just not the case. Nothing happens in a vacuum, and the history of gender relations matters in things like this.
Katie Hill sues ex-husband, Daily Mail over “nonconsensual porn”
She was married to Daily Mail? [shudder]
There’s a lot of “she’s no angel” going on. Hill’s ex uploading those photos was an offence against Hill and against the staffer that hand-wringers are supposedly defending.
Every single time a powerful man is accused of raping someone there are hundreds of voices saying, “When are we going to forgive men for past mistakes.” Here we have a woman accused of bad judgment. We have a man who posted images non-consensually on a revenge porn site. And somehow we have accusations that it is crass for the woman to want some kind of consequences for that man.
Well, duh! Gotta keep them in line, right? /s
But that’s men just being men, right? They can’t change their true nature! /s
There always seems to be, whenever the topic at hand is misogyny.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.