<p>LOS ANGELES &mdash; Former California congresswoman Katie Hill has been ordered to pay about $220,000 in attorneys’ fees to a British tabloid and two conservative journalists she had sued after the publication of intimate photos without her consent.</p>
<p>The Democrat who briefly represented a district north of Los Angeles had accused them in a revenge-porn lawsuit of violating the law by publishing or distributing the compromising photos. The lawsuit was thrown out earlier this year on First Amendment grounds, <a href="https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-06-02/katie-hill-attorneys-fees-revenge-porn?utm_id=30470&amp;sfmc_id=1694441">the Los Angeles Times reported.</a></p>
<p>
<a href="https://apnews.com/article/1b4b3755a7124b029440e8513e981929">Hill resigned in 2019 </a> after the publication of the photos and amid a House ethics probe into allegations of an inappropriate sexual relationship with one of her congressional staffers, which she denied.</p>
<p>On Wednesday, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Yolanda Orozco awarded about $105,000 to the parent company of the Daily Mail, a British tabloid. Hill had called for a boycott of the tabloid on Twitter and sought donations for her legal costs.</p>
<p>“A judge just ordered me to PAY the Daily Mail more than $100k for the privilege of them publishing nude photos of me obtained from an abuser,” she tweeted. “The justice system is broken for victims.”</p>
<p>A spokeswoman told the newspaper that Hill plans to appeal the rulings that dismissed her lawsuit. An attorney for the Daily Mail did not respond to a request for comment.</p>
<p>The judge previously ordered Hill to pay about $84,000 to the attorneys of Jennifer Van Laar, managing editor of the conservative website Red State, and about $30,000 to lawyers representing radio producer Joseph Messina. Hill initially accused Messina of being part of a conspiracy to distribute the pictures, but dropped her claim against him earlier this year.</p>
<p>Krista Lee Baughman, an attorney representing Van Laar and Messina, told the Times that the ruling showed that “those who file speech-chilling (intimidation) lawsuits must pay the price.”</p>
<p>Hill, 33, gained national attention in 2018 when she was elected to Congress in a district long under Republican control. She was celebrated as the face of millennial change and was close to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a fellow California Democrat. </p>
<p>Less than a year later, as Hill was going through a divorce, Red State published stories alleging that she had an affair with a male congressional staffer and that she and her husband, Kenneth Heslep, had a previous relationship with a female campaign worker. The website and the Daily Mail also published provocative pictures.</p>
<p>Hill confirmed that she and Heslep had a relationship with the campaign worker, which she conceded was inappropriate because the woman was a subordinate.</p>
<p>In December, Hill sued the two media outlets, Van Laar, Messina and Heslep, arguing that they violated California’s revenge-porn law by distributing or publishing intimate images, including photographs that showed her nude.</p>
<p>The publications and Van Laar successfully argued that Hill’s lawsuit failed to meet the requirements of the revenge-porn statute. They also asserted that they had a First Amendment right to publish information about an elected official’s behavior that is newsworthy.</p>
<p>The parent company of Red State has not sought attorneys’ fees, the newspaper said. Heslep has not filed any legal responses and does not have a lawyer on record in the case.</p>
<p>Hill later wrote a book about her experience and formed a political committee to support women and younger candidates, including those of color. She hasn’t ruled out another possible run for public office.</p>