When suit was brought, the two divergent views were as clear as possible. On the one side were lawyers and academics who both cared and knew about First Amendment law. On the other was the “revenge porn” crowd who pushed defrocked congresswoman Katie Hill to go after the Daily Mail for publishing naked pics of her with a staffer. She did, with Carrie Goldberg as her lawyer and the unduly passionate as her bankroll.

It did not go well. It has now gone worse.

A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge on Wednesday ordered former congresswoman Katie Hill to pay The Daily Mail $104,747.75 in attorney fees for defending themselves in court after they published her nude photos in 2019.

“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,” Hill tweeted Wednesday. “The justice system is broken for victims.”

She included a link to a donation page for her legal fees.

On social media, you’re a victim if you say you are and get enough “likes.” That’s not how law works.

But Judge Yolanda Orozco tossed Hill’s claims against Van Laar and The Daily Mail on anti-SLAPP grounds this past April. Orozco found The Daily Mail’s duty to its readers is to question Hill’s character and qualifications as a member of Congress and that is a matter of public concern. That includes allegations of extramarital affairs with a paid campaign staff member, illegal drug use and whether Hill has a tattoo similar to the symbols formerly used by white supremacists as detailed in the story.

On Wednesday, Orozco ordered Hill to pay the Daily Mail nearly $105,000 in attorney fees and other costs incurred to defend against the lawsuit. In her tentative order which she adopted, Orozco found the fees reasonable.

This made no sense to Hill, being told by everyone in her echo chamber that she was the victim, she should have won, and if the law was against her, the law was wrong. After all, no legal system could be right that failed to acknowledge that Hill’s and Goldberg’s fantasy law was the “right” outcome.

In opposition to the instant motion, Plaintiff argues that the interests of justice support reducing Plaintiff’s fee burden. Plaintiff asserts that to award Defendant even a fraction of their attorney fees is to condone its conduct and greenlight the same humiliating treatment for the next unfortunate soul it sets is exploitive agenda upon. Plaintiff contends that this case is a matter of first impression and this was not a clear-cut matter before the court. Plaintiff contends that the court should take mercy on plaintiffs who already are saddled with their own legal fees.

In reply, Defendant argues that as the prevailing party, it is entitled to recover its attorney fees; the only issues that is before the Court is whether the amount of the fee request is reasonable.

Under the California anti-SLAPP law, the prevailing party is entitled to reasonable attorneys fees. The only question for the court is whether the fees sought are reasonable, which the court here found they were. What is not a question is whether the court should be merciful to the plaintiff because it’s a lot of money, even though she forced the defendant in her quixotic quest to suffer those costs to defend against her frivolous action.

But what’s particularly curious is the losing party’s plea that awarding fees to the Daily Mail “is to condone its conduct and greenlight the same humiliating treatment for the next unfortunate soul it sets is exploitive agenda upon.” Not even the hard, cold fact of a crushing defeat on the anti-SLAPP motion shook Hill from the righteousness of her entitlement not to be humiliated by the publication of her images.

And yet, there may well be a good chance that Hill won’t actually have to pay the bill that’s now come due, not because the law is wrong or that she might yet prevail. The reason is far simpler and sadder.

Hill is out there in twitterland seeking donations at a site created by Carrie Goldberg to fund the cause, including, presumably, her legal fees, and some misguided but outraged person awaiting her social security payment will give it up to the cause.

“The time defendant claims counsel spent researching and drafting its anti-SLAPP papers, as well as the time spent preparing for oral argument, are entirely reasonable even without the detailed billing records provided here,” [Judge Orozco] wrote.

The point of anti-SLAPP laws are to prevent frivolous lawsuits like this from silencing public participation, whether in the mainstream media or even a lowly blog, to provide an expedited means of ending the suit and to compensate the victim of strategic attacks against free speech and free press. Not only was this the right outcome, but the only outcome that the law could provide. It’s not as if Katie Hill wasn’t warned. It’s that she chose not to heed the warnings and to follow the fantasy cries of her echo chamber instead. The grift goes on.