Los Angeles Judge Yolanda Orozco ruled against the lawsuit by former representative Katie Hill saying that her photos being leaked in media are covered by "freedom of speech". 

Former woman Hill, who resigned after the sex scandal, had filed a lawsuit against Daily Mail claiming the nude photos should come under revenge porn.

The judge ruled on Wednesday that naked images of Hill taken by her ex-husband Kenny Heslep and leaked to the paper  “were a matter of public issue or the public interest,” since they were indicative of Hill’s “character and qualifications for her position.”

The photos were posted claiming the ex congresswoman had affairs with her staffers.

The judge rejected the argument by Hill’s attorney that the paper could have just limited its scoop to describing the images without publishing them, calling such reasoning “unpersuasive.”

“The fact that information to be gleaned from an image may be disseminated in an alternative manner does not equate to a finding that the image itself is not a matter of public concern,” Orozco said.

Katie resigned after being defined as the sexual predators and allegations by many of her having multiple affairs at the job.

Hill admitted to a relationship with one female campaign staffer but rejected any other allegations of inappropriate behavior. She vowed to take the British tabloid, which exclusively published the images, including the one showing her smoking a bong naked and spotting what appeared to be a swastika tattoo, to court, arguing she was a victim of “revenge porn.”

Hill has presented herself as an advocate for women's rights following the scandal. Hill slammed the court's decisions as misogynistic.

“Today, we lost in court because a judge – not a jury – thinks revenge porn is free speech. This fight has massive implications for any woman who wants to run for office, so quitting isn’t an option,” she tweeted following the court's decision.