I just viewed the original Daily Mail and Redstate stories. I think there’s a huge difference between reporting the facts of a story as is important in a free society, and publishing extremely personal and private nude photographs of you without your permission for all the world to see just for the tabloid salacious pornographic shock factor.

I fundamentally disagree with the judge in this case. These were not shocking pictures of a crime let alone a serious one. Even if you think holding a bong in California in 2017 or a tiny tattoo of a run of the mill iron cross on her hip suddenly justifies it as depicting a crime, there is still no difference between describing it in text and showing it in picture. These are private vulnerable photos of someone naked. There is no public interest in allowing what is essentially revenge porn to be distributed of someone just because they’re a public figure. If your naked photos are used without your permission and weaponized against you and you’re not committing some crime in them that the public has a right to know about, it’s revenge porn plain and simple.

This is not just smelling of misogyny, a long past of weaponizing women’s sexual side against them, but homophobia, as the “shock” factor comes in part from her being naked with another woman.

Frankly, you cannot claim you value the right to privacy when it comes to Apple and Google etc. but then say, yeah showing someone’s nude photographs to the entire world without their permission for nothing more than a pornographic and homophobic shock factor is A-OK because it comes from the sacred media.

There are reasonable limits on freedom of the press. Very few, but this case is undoubtedly one of them.