Public Shame,Gender,and Power: The Case of a U.S. Representative and Intimate Image Abuse

Abstract

Intimate image abuse, often called “revenge porn,” is a form of sexual exploitation that disproportionately targets women, especially those in public life. This research focuses on a case study of former U.S. Representative Katie Hill, who resigned from Congress after nude photographs of her were published without her consent. Analyzing social media content, this research examines how users framed Hill’s case and constructed meaning. This investigation sheds light on how gender and power in online mediated spaces cannot be distinguished from the inequalities and ideologies found in our so-called offline social interactions.

U.S. Representative Katie Hill, a Democrat from California, assumed office as a member of the Congress in January 2019. Less than a year later, however, she resigned. Her resignation, announced via Twitter (now X), occurred shortly after the British tabloid The Daily Mail and the conservative blog RedState published nude photographs of Hill alongside allegations she engaged in an affair with her Legislative Director during her run for office. These images were reportedly leaked by Hill’s ex-husband. When delivering her final remarks on the House floor, Hill disclosed that it was “the first time she had left her apartment in days” and described the emotional toll of the ordeal, stating that she had “gone to the darkest places that a mind can go” and “shed more tears than [she] thought possible” (Hinkle, 2019).

Hill’s actions could certainly be viewed as an abuse of power and a violation of moral standards; however, she was also a victim of intimate image abuse, known colloquially as “revenge porn.” Nude photographs of Hill were distributed without her consent and subsequently published on a wide scale. Intimate image abuse constitutes a relatively new form of sexual exploitation, disproportionately affecting women, who comprise more than 90% of victims worldwide (Cavalcante & Lelis, 2016; see also Keen et al., 2020). Often categorized as technology-facilitated sexual violence, it encompasses the unauthorized sharing or dissemination of intimate imagery without consent (Döring & Miller, 2022). This phenomenon raises critical questions about privacy, consent, and the power dynamics inherent in societal narratives surrounding women, particularly in positions of authority. As in Hill’s case, these images are most often leaked by a former and trusted partner. This form of victimization exemplifies the pervasive nature of gender violence targeting women in contemporary American society, one shaped by misogynistic beliefs. Additionally, it illustrates how digital media provides new ways to reinforce existing gender ideologies regarding women and power.

To better understand the role of mass communication and digital technology in the victimization of women, the study examined themes in social media comments responding to Hill’s resignation tweet. We chose to study Hill’s experience as a case study because it represents a clear case of intimate image abuse, she was a political public figure, and she posted her resignation online, providing the opportunity to study textual public discourse. This relatively new and persistent form of gender-based abuse, coupled with the evolving role of social media in shaping public discourse, underscores the relevance of this study. By analyzing the reactions posted in Hill’s case, we can better understand the broader implications related to our digital media environment and the newer ways women suffer sexualized (albeit digital) violence. For the many women who face similar invasions of privacy today, this work highlights the urgent need for legal and cultural shifts.

To form a foundation for our critical exploration of public discourse surrounding this case study, we constructed a theoretical framework grounded in feminist media, gender role, and public sphere theories, along with concepts related to discourse and power, understood through the lens of Michael Foucault and Stuart Hall. Methodologically, three researchers employed a qualitative textual analysis to systematically analyze comments responding to Hill’s resignation.

Before proceeding, we explain our terminology. Image-based sexual exploitation, commonly and colloquially referred to as “revenge porn” or nonconsensual pornography, is widely understood to be a violation of one’s most private images. These common terminologies, however, have been widely criticized as inaccurate and insensitive. Henry and Powell (2018) noted that labeling the abuse as “pornography” is misleading as it does not indicate the harm done to its victims. Terming the images as pornography “liken[s] the images to an acceptable and/or desirable sub-genre within commercially produced online pornography” (p. 400). Henry and Powell (2018) argue that this abuse should be termed “image-based sexual exploitation” because it encompasses a broad range of motivations and not only to avenge a perceived infraction. Image-based sexual exploitation includes images that are not pornographic but are used for pornographic purposes and also images that were originally produced for personal use—for example, when a “selfie” is taken. After careful consideration of the various terms used to describe this type of abuse and invasion of privacy, for the purposes of this research we use the term “intimate image abuse.”

Law, Policy, and Digitzed Sexual Violence

In 2023, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization published a study revealing that more than 58% of young women and girls around the world have experienced online harassment on social media platforms. Additional studies point to the prevalence of harassment aimed at adult women, especially those who are public figures, including journalists and politicians. This includes threats, spreading falsehoods and damaging information, doxxing, and security attacks. While online harassment spans a wide spectrum of severity, research suggests that around 4% of internet users worldwide are victims of intimate image abuse (Center for Innovative Public Health Research, 2016). This has been defined as sexual violence when a perpetrator distributes electronic sexually explicit images and/or videos—nearly nude or nude images—of an individual without their consent (Citron & Franks, 2014; Henry & Powell, 2018; McKeen, 2022).

Around a decade ago, in 2012 and 2015, respectively, websites facilitating the nonconsensual distribution of intimate images, such as IsAnyoneUp and U Got Posted, were dismantled. The proprietor of IsAnyoneUp, Hunter Moore, voluntarily took down the site, while Kevin Bollaert, the creator of U Got Posted, was convicted of extortion. In response to these incidents, major social media and technology corporations, including Meta and Google, implemented procedures enabling victims to request the removal of nonconsensual intimate images cross-listed across their platforms and other websites. However, in 2017, a study found that 10 million Americans reported experiencing intimate image abuse (Eaton et al., 2017), and a subsequent study documented a staggering 400% global increase in victims since 2016 (Ruvalcaba & Eaton, 2020). The crisis only intensified in the wake of the global pandemic, as noted by Taddeo (2020) and others. McKeen (2022) noted, social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic “led to an increase in ‘revenge porn’,” contributing to a new wave of cyber sexual abuse.

At this point all 50 U.S. states and Washington, D.C., have enacted legislation criminalizing the unauthorized dissemination of sexually explicit images to curb the proliferation of this form of harassment. South Carolina was the most recent, passing the “Unauthorized Disclosure of Intimate Images Bill” in May of 2025. Despite the fairly swift adoption of state statutes addressing intimate image abuse, the absence of federal laws in the U.S. results in inconsistent protections and enforcement. Without federal legislation, intimate image abuse is prosecuted at the state level, leading to significant discrepancies in how the crime is defined and penalized. The penalties also vary widely; for instance, Alabama treats intimate image abuse as a misdemeanor with up to 1 year of imprisonment, whereas Missouri classifies it as a felony with harsher sentencing options. Massachusetts, one of the last adopters of relevant laws, categorizes the offense under “criminal harassment,” punishable by up to 2.5 years in prison. These inconsistencies highlight the urgent need for standardized national legislation to ensure comprehensive protection for victims. However, within the context of legislation meant to protect victims of gender-based violence in offline spaces, there is plenty of skepticism regarding the efficacy of the legal system when it comes to online media and communication spaces. Additionally, how digital harassment cases play out in the world—outside of the legal system—might indicate these laws stop short of fully protecting victims.

Nevertheless, victims have attempted to seek justice through legal means. The lack of federal laws, however, has forced victims to rely on outdated legal precedents and privacy laws, such as Wood v. Hustler Magazine Inc., the Privacy Act of 1974, and the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2004. Among the problems with these laws, they place the burden of proof on victims, more often than not exacerbating their trauma. Beyond the criminal court system, civil litigation offers another avenue for justice, but it is often expensive and time-consuming, making it inaccessible for many victims. Moreover, even a successful lawsuit does not guarantee the removal of intimate images from the internet unless they were copyrighted before distribution. This creates a cycle of financial and emotional distress for victims, underscoring the inadequacies of current legal remedies and the pressing need for stronger, more uniform protections.

Feminist Theories, Social Media, and Meaning-Making

Jürgen Habermas (1991) conceptualized the public sphere as a space for public individuals to collectively discuss and influence public opinion through rational and critical debate. His work centered the public sphere as a crucial element for public opinion, democracy and the role of media in civil society. Feminist critiques have challenged this conceptualization, arguing that it overlooks the myriad ways in which social hierarchies disrupt equal participation, including the gender divides. As Nancy Fraser (1990) noted, Habermas did not take real-world conditions into account in his normative ideal of rational-critical debate, neglecting to fully consider cultural capital and unequal power relations in his theoretical model. Fraser asserted that marginalized individuals create competing or counter-publics to articulate their unique interests and experiences.

Digitalization has further complicated and reconfigured this scenario. The internet and social media have enabled accessibility and the amplification of diverse voices to participate in public debates, but continue to perpetuate existing hierarchies of power and influence. Studies have shown that while the digital may democratize communication, it often reproduces the same economic, political, and social inequalities observable in other spaces we occupy (Ebeling, 2006; Galpin, 2022). For instance, in early research related to the online environment, Harp and Tremayne (2006) noted that participation in online discourse is disproportionately achieved by individuals already equipped with societal privileges. Thus, although digital platforms offer new avenues for discursive participation, they also risk reinforcing historical barriers for women and marginalized communities (Ndawana & Chisambiro, 2024). Media scholars, however, have found that social media has afforded women a space for counter-hegemonic discourses, like those counter-publics described by Fraser. (Cai et al., 2023; Ndawana & Chisambiro, 2024). Feminist media theorists emphasize the challenges women face are not merely a reflection of their absence from the public sphere but are also deeply rooted in the structures that define who gets to speak and whose voices matter (Galpin, 2022; Harp et al., 2025). After all, the public/private divide has always been gendered, with women’s sexuality policed at this boundary (Vera-Gray & Kelly, 2020). As this research examines intimate image abuse—a topic in which women are primarily the victims—it is crucial to recognize these dynamics and approach research with a nuanced understanding of participation and representation in the digital public sphere.

Patriarchal ideologies have long shaped American culture, particularly in defining gender roles and moral expectations—a key element when considering responses to intimate image abuse. Welter (1966) described the “Cult of Domesticity” or “True Womanhood,” which prescribed an ideal standard for white, middle- and upper-middle-class women based on four core virtues: piety, purity, submission, and domesticity. This expectation of female purity serves as a mechanism of social control, limiting women’s autonomy and reinforcing male dominance. Unfortunately, these concepts are still relevant to gender role expectations today. By positioning purity (i.e. chastity) as a defining characteristic of a “good” woman, society upholds a double standard that grants men sexual agency while restricting women’s freedom, ultimately sustaining gender inequality (O’Shea et al., 2024). When women fail to meet these prescribed standards, they are often shamed, ostracized, or deemed unworthy of respect. This is especially evident in cases of sexual violence, where victims are frequently scrutinized for their clothing, behavior, or past sexual relationships rather than being seen as survivors of a crime (O’Shea et al., 2024). Feminist theorists have long described the blame victims of rape and sexual assault often endure in media and the public sphere, particularly when they violate traditional gender roles (Benedict, 1992; Cuklanz, 2000) These traditional gender roles include being maternal and taking on the role of wife and mother, while women who are overtly sexual and career oriented are seen as violating these gender expectations (Glick & Fiske, 1996; Koepke et al., 2014; Masser et al., 2010). Gender role theory in conjunction with feminist media theories guide the exploration of this study, offering a way to interpret the discourse surrounding intimate image abuse within a broader context of women, social power, and victim blaming.

Feminist theory attends to how power operates through discourses and systems that shape our everyday lived experiences. Feminist media theorists note that the decentralized and interactive nature of social media challenges the traditional gatekeeping functions of elite-controlled media platforms, enabling women and other marginalized voices to create, share, and contest representations of themselves (Veletsianos et al., 2018). Bypassing traditional barriers, social media allows women and other marginalized voices to create, share and challenge representations, thus reasserting control over their narratives (Banet-Weiser, 2018). This empowerment manifests through new forms of engagement that allow these groups to reclaim control over their narratives in a public sphere that is ostensibly more accessible. However, the perception of social media as inherently more democratic than traditional media institutions is a fallacy that overlooks significant challenges. For instance, online harassment and algorithmic biases often exacerbate the marginalization of women’s voices, leading to a paradox where the hoped-for democratization of discourse becomes entangled with new forms of exclusion and violence (Veletsianos et al., 2018; Imam et al., 2025). Researchers like Aksar et al. (2022) explored how gendered constructs and public discourse surrounding domestic issues on platforms like YouTube reveal underlying societal misogyny. Similarly, Nelson (2025) noted the interplay between gender, power, and public spectacle in this context, emphasizing that such platforms can perpetuate dominance rather than dismantle it. When examining rape culture on Twitter, Stubbs-Richardson et al. (2018) found social media to be an “arena of engagement, discussion, and conflict between those who support victims and those who engage in victim blaming” (p. 108). Additionally, Reidy et al. (2025) analyzed YouTube comments below trial videos involving domestic violence allegations between Hollywood actors Johnny Depp and Amber Heard. The authors concluded that gendered prejudice was normalized and legitimized and used to justify violence against women. Especially relevant to our case study, Barratt (2018) examined community responses to news stories of two cases of intimate image abuse in Trinidad and Tobago, concluding that “prejudicial chastising of women is used as a discourse to not only shame and blame but construct femininity-as-fail” (p. 16). While Barratt noted debate dominated the discussion, the majority of utterances blamed the victim. Barratt (2018) concluded:

Even where a woman’s fight for gender justice is endorsed as valid, public sentiment (as it is evident in feedback forums) asserts erasure of this “win” based on a construction of her femininity-as-failure; failure because she does not meet prescriptions of respectability, responsibility and containment of her body and sexuality. (p. 31)

Essentially, these scholars illustrate that while social media can amplify marginalized voices, it also reinforces hegemonic discourses.

By engaging with the works of Michel Foucault (1972) and Stuart Hall (1980), alongside feminist media theorists, we can deepen our analysis of power, language, and meaning-making in these online contexts. Foucault’s insights on power and discourse bear particular relevance here, as they help explain the ways in which social media can serve as a site for both resistance and reproduction of traditional power hierarchies (Graham et al., 2020). Foucault (1972) emphasized that discourse is a mechanism of power, influencing what is considered “truth” in society and how knowledge is organized and understood. Ultimately, a process that reinforces social hierarchies. In that sense, intimate image abuse can operate as a disciplinary mechanism putting women in their “right” place. Along those lines, Hall (1980) argued that meaning is not inherent in language itself but is created through a process of interactions. He explained, “Language is one of the ‘media’ through which thoughts, ideas, and feelings are represented in a culture” (Hall, 1980, p. 8). Both scholars underscore that meaning is dynamic, negotiated, and embedded in cultural frameworks that shape perception and reality. In this space, meaning in language and discourse is constructed through a network of social, cultural, and ideological contexts that shape how individuals interpret and produce messages. Hall (1980) links ideology to social practices, emphasizing that meaning is not inherent in events or objects but is instead constructed through language. Ideologies do not exist as isolated concepts; rather, they are interconnected through discursive associations, where one idea activates a “chain of connotative associations” (Hall, 1985, p. 104). His articulation theory underscores the importance of examining discourse within its specific social and historical context, highlighting how meanings are not fixed but are shaped by shifting power structures and ideological struggles. Hall argues that unity within discourse arises when ideas become linked to social forces, such as patriarchal conceptions of gender roles. His theory offers a framework for understanding how “ideological elements come, under certain conditions, to cohere together within a discourse” (Hall, 1986, p. 53).

This theoretical perspective is particularly relevant in analyzing how meaning is constructed in social media narratives surrounding intimate image abuse. The meaning of intimate image abuse is not fixed in texts, visuals or conversations themselves, but it gets articulated with different discourses, themes and ideas, such as morality, criminality, privacy, gender, or public interest. Hall (1986) contends that meaning is produced through contingent and historically specific articulations between ideas, practices, and institutions. In the case of intimate image abuse, public interpretations of such incidents are shaped by prevailing discourses on gender roles, sex, power, and morality. Importantly, articulation theory stresses that certain elements get temporarily sutured together, creating a particular configuration of meaning of the issue at hand. On platforms like X (formerly Twitter), users engage in discursive practices that either reinforce dominant ideologies or challenge them, contributing to the broader cultural understanding of these issues and the discursive struggle over meaning.

Articulation theory is a fitting analytical framework to examine meaning-making of intimate image abuse and its problematic and even contradictory underpinnings. Applying to this study allows for an exploration of the themes (narrative chains) that emerge in discussions of Hill’s case. Social media users may construct narratives positioning Hill as a politician who engaged in sexual misconduct and deserved any repercussions she experienced or a victim of intimate image abuse, depending on the ideological frameworks and connotative associations they draw upon. These competing ideas reflect deeply ingrained societal narratives about female sexuality, agency, and victimization, all of which are historically cemented in patriarchal ideologies. By analyzing the articulation of these discourses, this research contributes to our understanding of how intimate image abuse—a form of gender-based violence—is accepted, contested, and politicized in digital spaces and how individuals and groups in collective conversation make meaning in the context of an ongoing hegemonic struggle.

The Case of Katie Hill

Hill was one of the women elected to the U.S. Congress in 2018 in what was nicknamed the “Pink Wave” and she quickly rose to become one of the Democratic Party’s stars (Baker, 2019). That changed, however, when in October 2019, RedState, a conservative website, published a report accusing Hill and her husband of engaging in a sexual relationship with a campaign staffer. The same website also reported that Hill had an affair with one of her male Congressional staff members. Following RedState’s accusations, the DailyMail.com, co-wrote with the author of RedState an article that contained several nude pictures of Hill (Baker, 2019). Hill has maintained the pictures were released by her ex-husband without her knowledge or consent.

When Hill’s images were circulated on the internet and social media, Facebook and Twitter both had protocols in place that prohibited the sharing of intimate photos without the subjects’ permission. Even so, Hill’s images were distributed, indicating both platforms were either unaware of the breach of policy and/or failed to enforce their own policies. Hill endured the violation and degradation that came with having these intimate pictures distributed on the internet without her consent. She did, however, sue the DailyMail.com. The lawsuit was unsuccessful though and in 2022 Hill filed bankruptcy after being ordered to pay the legal fees of the DailyMail.com.

Hill’s experience represents an apt case for analysis. Because of Hill’s role as a member of Congress, her case garnered significant attention. She also posted a picture of her resignation letter on Twitter (now X), which resulted in a record of public discourse ripe for analysis. Her choice to use Twitter as a medium to announce her resignation adheres to documentation showing Twitter was one of the most used social media platforms at the time (Pew Research Center, 2024). The platform is designed for microposts that trigger public debates. Instead of sharing the more mundane everyday (like food pictures and vacation selfies), Twitter had carved a place for political online debate among social media platforms (Hermida, 2013, pp. 295–297).

Research Questions

Analyzing comments responding to Hill’s resignation tweet on Twitter offers a valuable lens into how intimate image abuse is discursively normalized, justified, and condemned in mediated public discourse. This analysis allows us to examine, within the context of gender role theory, how social media users discuss issues of privacy invasion when involving a woman in a position of power. Our goal is to gain deeper insights into how people construct meaning around intimate image abuse. Our theoretical framework and previous research informs our research questions. Legal scholarship and policy analysis foreground gaps in existing protections and public understandings of intimate image abuse. Literature on gender roles and victim blaming guides our interest in how Hill is morally judged and whether she is held responsible for her own victimization. Feminist media theory and theorizing of the digital public sphere point us toward ways platformed discourse may normalize or contest intimate image abuse as a political scandal rather than a form of gendered violence. Finally, articulation theory and Foucault’s concepts of discourse and power direct our attention to how these different strands—gender, law, politics, and sexuality—are stitched together to construct meaning in online discourse about Hill.

Themes derived from the literature and theoretical framework led us to develop a complex set of six questions that drove our analysis. We treat them as analytically distinct yet overlapping dimensions of the discourse regarding intimate image abuse, women victims, and traditional gender roles:

What insights does the discourse provide about public perceptions of current laws or policies regarding intimate image abuse?

How did users on Twitter discuss issues of privacy and consent in relation to Hill’s case?

In what ways did the discourse around Hill’s case include or challenge victim-blaming language or attitudes?

In what ways did the discourse reinforce hegemonic gender roles?

How did Hill’s status as a former Congresswoman enter the public discourse?

How did Hill’s position as a public figure and not a woman adhering to traditional gender roles enter into the discussion?

Analytical Approach

The goal of this project was to understand how public discourse articulated Hill’s intimate image abuse to legal and privacy issues, victim-blaming, hegemonic gender roles, and women’s roles in public and positions of authority. For this reason, we chose a qualitative analysis for the project, a method that allows for an investigation into how a phenomena occurs and not simply how often. Discourse analysis forms an umbrella for various methods in the study of language and meaning (Graham, 2011). Specifically, this study is informed by Foucault’s writings on language, meaning, and power—known as Foucauldian discourse analysis. From this theoretical perspective, discourse organizes knowledge and is historically specific, and an analysis must reveal ways dominant discourses exclude, marginalize, and oppress realities. Different from the often-employed critical discourse analysis that focuses on linguistic structures, Foucauldian discourse analysis systematically analyzes bodies of statements to establish the rules of what constitutes legitimate and illegitimate statements and questions and defines the foundations of truth (Matthews, 2005). This approach does not seek to reveal the truth of what is said but rather to disclose what a statement does, “that is, one questions the constitutive or political effects of saying this instead of that” (Graham, 2011, p. 667). This approach acknowledges the polysemy of text, or that meaning is socially constructed and open to multiple meanings.

In this research, textual interpretations are informed by our theoretical framework and previous literature. These structured the study’s conceptual framework and our set of research questions, which were then applied in the coding and interpretation of the analyzed Tweets. The research questions drove the identification of particular themes but our framework was not used to force data into categories but rather used as a guide. In other words, the authors were open to the emergence of new and unexpected findings but the analysis was, at the same time, concept driven. All authors were involved in the analysis, which provided investigator triangulation to enhance credibility and robustness of findings. This technique provides the opportunity for cross-referencing findings, richer insights, consensus building, and the mitigation of bias.

Sample and Data Collection

To understand the discourse surrounding Hill’s resignation after being a victim of intimate image abuse, we analyzed user comments under her pinned resignation tweet which appeared on October 27, 2019. As of mid-2024, Hill’s post had generated more than 16,000 comments. The task of qualitatively analyzing social media discourse proves challenging for a few reasons. Among these is the sheer volume and dynamic nature of these participatory platforms, which make a qualitative analysis of the complete discourse nearly impossible and certainly impractical. Additionally, algorithms curate and personalize content. To mitigate the algorithmic nature of Twitter two researchers collected data using personal Twitter accounts. Our goal was to analyze early public reactions to Hill’s post; therefore, we limited our collection of comments to those posted within the first 72-hr following her resignation. Using the platform’s chronological display of replies—and after excluding spam, duplicate replies, non-English comments, and comments unrelated to Hill’s resignation or the surrounding controversy—we took screen shots of 200 tweeted comments, with the intention to collect more if our analysis did not reach saturation. Saturation in qualitative work is the point when new data do not yield fresh insights, themes, or patterns (Glaser & Strauss, 2017). While 200 artifacts of text may seem like an extensive number for qualitative analysis, the very short nature of the Tweeted comments made this a reasonable starting point for analysis.

After compiling the 200 comments, each of the researchers conducted a close reading of the tweets to familiarize ourselves with the discourse, and uncover assumptions in the texts. At this point, the researchers came together to discuss initial interpretations. After this initial reading and debriefing session, the researchers employed a second round of reading to identify repeated themes, phrases, metaphors, and assumptions used in the texts. Comments were examined for patterns of statements about law and policy, those that constructed Hill as victim, perpetrator, or morally suspect, discursive rules governing what could be said about intimate image abuse, and the operation of power, gender norms, and moral judgment within commenters’ language. Our research questions led each of the researchers to look for specific topics; however, we were open to new and unexpected findings. Attention was given to both what was explicit and implicit in the social media comments, and how these comments were articulated to broader social and cultural understandings regarding our topic. Through this iterative coding process and the use of a coding sheet, discursive patterns were organized around four analytically derived themes tied to the research questions: (a) Legal and Policy Implications, (b) Privacy and Consent, (c) Victim-Blaming and Gendered Stigma, and (d) Influence of Public Figure Status. Finally, these themes were interpreted in relation to broader cultural discourses about gender, sexuality, political identity, and public/private boundaries. We determined that after 124 comments we had reached saturation, and feel confident that these tweets represent the primary discursive constructions within the discourse.

Findings

Legal and Policy Implications

We sought to understand what insights the discourse provided about public perceptions of current laws or policies regarding intimate image abuse. We found some users did use Twitter and the comment option to acknowledge Hill’s position as a victim and not the person to blame in the context of the leaked photos, but few of these indicated an awareness of the legal and policy issues and implications of intimate image abuse. For example, one commenter expressed sympathy while at the same time indicating that mistakes on Hill’s part landed her in the situation—essentially ignoring the legal violation (note: we have chosen to remove usernames for the sake of privacy). Another commenter wrote, “I’m terribly sorry to hear this and that you’ve had to endure this. Your mistakes don’t remotely justify what’s happened to you the past week or so.” However, these shows of sympathy were rare, and many users instead made light of the situation, trivializing the incident and placing it within the context of pornography. “There’s always Pornhub. . .,” said one commenter, and “Perhaps you can reboot your career in adult entertainment? I heard @Playboy is always looking for new talent,” wrote another. Reinforcing the idea that these pictures were not a legal issue of concern, several commenters posted comments with some of the very images that Hill had not consented to publicize. Additionally, there were many comments asking to see the images, like this one: “Can somebody please forward the pics, I’d like 2 see what the big deal is all about.”

A recognition that the matter belonged in the legal system and that others were legally at fault also appeared in the comments, though more often than not in vague terms. For example, “The photoshopped revenge porn was wrong. I hope those who did you wrong are brought to justice under the law,” wrote one commenter, and “I hope u fight and u sue and most def humiliate all these men that involved in game of shame. There is no shame!” Another comment stated, “Don’t do it! The ones who releases [sic] photos of you without your permission should be prosecuted!” Another added, “I hope your ex-husband goes to jail for what he did.” While still another commenter suggested that “There may also be opportunities as a legislator to help challenge similar patterns of intimidation?” There were also those users who explicitly called for legislation about this kind of image abuse and seemed to have a deeper understanding of the issue, though these were rare. For example, one commenter wrote, “Clearly you put your district first. Thank you. Revenge porn is horrible. Please sue the man who did this to you. We need federal regulation to help with this in the future.” None of the analyzed comments noted the responsibility online sites played in the incident.

Ultimately, the commenters who addressed legal and policy aspects were few. This exemplifies the need for more understanding of the intersection of legal shortcomings related to intimate image abuse, digital platform accountability, and gendered online harassment. The mixed public response—ranging from calls for justice to blatant re-victimization—demonstrates that while there is some recognition of the harm caused by nonconsensual image sharing, a more robust legal and policy framework is still needed. Strengthening federal protections, holding perpetrators accountable, and requiring tech companies to take more proactive measures are critical steps in addressing this growing issue. Until these measures are in place, victims of intimate image abuse will continue to face significant barriers in reclaiming their privacy and dignity.

Privacy and Consent

Regarding our research query about privacy and consent, much of the discourse revolved around two main ideas: either a set up—a malicious disclosure of private images in order to affect her reputation—or a violation and form of abuse. Much of this discourse was within the context of politics. These comments often stated that Hill should not have had to resign, and that many other politicians had violated codes of ethics regarding sexual activities or had actually participated in worse behaviors than Hill. In fact, there were many calls for Hill to take her resignation back, suggesting that she was putting Democrats or democracy at a disadvantage. Very rarely was there explicit mention of or acknowledgment that the incident had to do with a violation of privacy or that she had not consented to the publication of these images. Below we offer examples of specific comments. One example of this perspective expresses outrage, saying

Ms Hill. I don’t know you and am not in your district. However, what has been done to you is despicable. Please reconsider your resignation as you appear to be a valuable and valued member of Congress. If you can, don’t let these undemocratic bad actors win.

Similarly, another individual posted, “Nooooo!!!!!! Nooooooo!!!! Katie!!!! No no no!!! Please don’t leave. This is crazy. We need good people to fight this fight. Please don’t go,” while another stated, “Tear up your resignation! Don’t resign. Stay and fight. Lots of women are counting on you.” Messages like this, calling Hill to stay in Congress because she had important legislative work to do, or she owed it to her constituents, largely ignored the serious abuse of privacy and the personal injury she suffered. Another commenter, while clearly indicating a desire for Hill to continue in Congress, berated her for resigning. They wrote, “I’m pissed at you for resigning. When we need you most, you should have had thicker skin to deal with while doing the job like most of the men have!” This comment illustrates the dismissal of any trauma Hill endured when her intimate images were publicized. The commenter essentially told Hill to get over it and toughen up. In fact, several comments compared Hill’s scandal to the scandals of men politicians. These indications that she needed to be tougher—to portray masculine traits—hints that perhaps women cannot handle the nature of political life.

Words like consent/consensual and privacy/private were very seldom mentioned in the posts, with a few notable exceptions, such as one commenter, who wrote, “it takes a lot of strength to do what you did while your privacy is exploited. Keep your head held high. I’m sorry this happened to you.” The overall lack of emphasis on privacy violations in most of the discourse, however, suggests that public conversations about such incidents focus more on other aspects (in this case, political implications) than on the fundamental issue of consent. While some commenters did express sympathy for Hill, their concerns were primarily about the political consequences of her resignation rather than the ethics and legalities of sharing private images without consent. This perhaps reflects a broader societal tendency in politics to frame scandals within party dynamics, rather than recognizing them as personal traumas. Certainly, in this case, the framing of Hill’s resignation leaned heavily on politics which overshadowed the harm done to Hill as an individual, revealing a gap in public understanding of digital media issues related to privacy and consent. It also disregards corporate accountability associated with the posted images.

The tendency to compare Hill’s situation to the misconduct of men politicians also hints at a persistent double standard women face in the political sphere. Many comments implied that Hill should have endured the scrutiny and remained in office, pointing to the actions of many men politicians who have endured sex scandals yet remained in office. This perspective, however, fails to acknowledge the double standards of men and women in the political sphere and disregards the unique violation of intimate image abuse. The unauthorized publication of intimate images, a violation that disproportionately affects women, constitutes a specific form of violence that can have severe emotional, professional, and psychological consequences. It is very different from sex scandals involving infidelity.

The relative absence of discourse around issues of privacy and consent reinforces the idea that women in public life are expected to withstand attacks on their personal dignity without sufficient recognition of the distinct vulnerabilities they face. The incident is treated like any other political sex scandal and most often disregards that Hill was a victim. Ultimately, the comments surrounding Hill’s case illustrate the limitations of how privacy and consent on digital media platforms are discussed in public discourse. While some voices acknowledged the injustice of her situation, the overwhelming focus demonstrates a reluctance to engage with the broader implications of digital privacy violations. The lack of attention to consent in these comments raises important questions about how society treats victims of such abuses and how we move forward with policies to protect people. As digital media continues to shape public and political discourse, the response to intimate image abuse like Hill’s suggests that more awareness and advocacy are needed to ensure that privacy violations are recognized as serious breaches of personal autonomy, rather than being reduced to sex and political scandals.

Victim-Blaming and Gendered Stigma

Regarding our investigation into how victim-blaming and gender roles appeared in the discourse, numerous comments tapped into well-known tropes that blame victims of intimate image abuse. This blame is bestowed upon women who forgo traditional patriarchal notions of gender-appropriate behavior and demeanor. An example of a comment from this category included, “Should be easy. You broke the rules. Nobody cares about your pictures. It’s your wretched demeanor, your bad judgment, and your immaturity. Stop blaming others. You did this.” Another commenter suggested that Hill had put herself in the situation: “The answer to preventing REVENGE PORN is not to make porn to begin with.” This framing of the intimate image abuse narrative is reminiscent of dominant victim-blaming rape discourse that tells women victim’s that their inappropriate gender behavior contributed to the crime—including, wearing revealing clothing, drinking too much alcohol, or enjoying a late night in a bar. This perspective was pervasive, with another commenter noting “No one to blame but yourself” and called on Hill to “stop blaming your husband. YOU are the one who took your clothes off and had an affair.” A good deal of the discourse cast Hill as the person responsible for her own intimate image abuse, even though she had not been the one to publicly (nor did she willingly) release the images. Not surprising, too, many of these comments were stated in very crude and vitriolic terms. For instance:

One more baby killing demon gone from Congress. You are a wimpy little girl. Real women deal with the consequences of spreading their legs and don’t have babys [sic] dismembered. They are woman enough to take responsibility.

And another:

Yes, because you looked miserable in the photos being “forced” by your estranged husband to pose nude, kiss another woman and act in a promiscuous manner. Not condemning those actions, just the lies to cover it up. I suppose you said no and that is why you’re smiling in the pic.

These comments reflect a broader cultural tendency to police women’s sexuality (and sexual joy) more harshly than men’s and to conflate personal choices with moral failings, after all women are expected to be chaste and submissive. The accusations against Hill often implied that because she had engaged in consensual sexual activities outside the bounds of traditional marital relations, she had forfeited any right to privacy or sympathy. This mirrors historical patterns in which women who defy traditional gender roles—particularly in relation to sexuality—are subject to heightened scrutiny and condemnation.

Numerous other comments reinforced traditional gender norms and expectations for women’s behavior. For example, one comment directed at Hill, “Bet your parents are proud,” serves to infantilize her by reducing her to the status of a child. The comment carries a condescending tone, implying that Hill’s choices and behavior are naive, immature, or inappropriate, as if they were actions typically associated with youth rather than an adult. By invoking the idea of parental pride or disapproval, the commenter undermines her autonomy and suggests that her actions are not her own, but rather a reflection of her parents’ influence or (lack of) control. This infantilization not only diminishes Hill’s agency but also perpetuates gender stereotypes, which often target women with the assumption that their actions are shaped by external forces, particularly familial or patriarchal expectations, rather than being an expression of their own will or maturity. Another commenter directed a blatantly gendered remark at Hill, telling her to “go make a sandwich.” This comment—one example among many that condemned Hill for her position outside of traditional feminine gender roles—reflects the deeply ingrained stereotype that women’s rightful place is in the kitchen (or at least, not in politics and the public sphere). The message is clear: women’s roles should be confined to domestic chores and serving others there and not in the House of Representatives. By reducing Hill to this outdated expectation, these types of comments not only belittled her but also reinforced a narrow, traditional view of gender roles. The comments perpetuate a harmful narrative that limits women’s identity and value to domestic spaces and punishes them for stepping out of those spaces. Such discourse is a stark reminder of the pervasive societal pressure women face to conform to restrictive gender norms, particularly those women who dare to take up public space like women politicians. Such rhetoric reinforces the idea that women must conform to narrow behavioral expectations or risk being deemed unworthy of dignity and respect. In contrast, male politicians embroiled in scandals often receive more leniency, with their misconduct framed as lapses in judgment rather than as fundamental character flaws. We only need to think about the “boys will be boys” and “locker room” refrains used to dismiss then-candidate Donald Trump’s “grab her by the pussy” remark revealed leading up to the 2016 U.S. Presidential election (Harp, 2019).

Furthermore, the framing of Hill’s situation as one of moral failing rather than victim serves to minimize the severity of the privacy violation she endured. By focusing on her behavior rather than the unethical and illegal distribution of her private images, these comments shift blame away from those who published and distributed her photos and instead places the responsibility on her for having taken them in the first place. This not only invalidates the harm caused by nonconsensual image distribution but also discourages broader conversations about digital privacy, consent, and the systemic ways in which women—particularly those in positions of power—are targeted (in many cases, via digital media). The underlying message is clear: women (and especially those in the public sphere) must be beyond reproach in their personal lives, or they risk being blamed based on traditional gender roles.

Ultimately, the discourse surrounding Hill’s case underscores the persistence of gender roles and expectations in political and mediated digital spaces and the consequences of breaking them. The vitriolic nature of many of these comments reveals a troubling willingness to dehumanize women who are perceived as having stepped outside the bounds of socially acceptable behavior (defined through historical patriarchal ideals and religious morality). Rather than acknowledging the invasion of her privacy as a serious issue, a majority of the discussion served to reinforce traditional power hierarchies that punish women for perceived personal transgressions. This response highlights the urgent need for a broader cultural shift in how we discuss and respond to intimate image abuse, ensuring that victims are recognized as such, rather than being blamed for their personal choices unrelated to the legal issue. It is worth reiterating, this discourse is reminiscent of the well-documented victim blame that occurs in cases of rape.

Influence of Public Figure Status

Lastly, we sought to understand how Hill’s role as a public figure played out in the discourse. We found very little evidence explicitly suggesting that Hill deserved or should endure the attention and scrutiny because of her status as a public figure. However, several commenters believed the attacks against Hill were politically motivated. For example, “I think it’s wrong that your personal life has been so deeply exposed for some loose definition of political gain.” Additionally, users did comment specifically about Hill’s response to the scandal—her resignation of public office. However, because our analysis looked at comments responding to Hill’s resignation letter this is not significant or surprising. Hill’s identity as a woman but not as a public figure was found to be a point of discussion. Many commenters, in fact, noted that she was subjected to a different standard than other politicians involved in other scandals, not necessarily because of the nature of the incident but because she is a woman. Further, many commenters explicitly highlighted the double standard women face in the public sphere, a decidedly feminist perspective. For instance, one person stated, “Upset to see you resign. Especially when men in Congress get a pass for all sorts of crimes and misdemeanors.” Another commenter added, “We live in a world of double standards. I hope you land on your feet somewhere even better!!!”

Along with notions of a double standard for women, Hill’s gender was also often addressed in the comments in other ways that pointed to the unequal treatment women face. For instance, one person wrote,

I’m sorry having a sex life when you’re a woman is so frowned upon in certain positions. I can’t believe they forced you to resign because of it. I wonder what the next generation of politicians will be like.

Numerous commenters expanded on this idea by drawing comparisons between Hill’s case and scandals involving men politicians, emphasizing how men in similar or worse situations were often able to retain their positions. These remarks highlighted the gendered nature of political scrutiny, where women’s personal lives—particularly their sexuality—are more likely to be weaponized against them. This sentiment reinforces the idea that public perceptions of intimate image abuse are deeply intertwined with gender biases and women’s appropriate roles. While some commenters recognized the injustice of how her case was handled (illustrating a feminist and alternative patriarchal understanding of the issue), there was little discussion about concrete measures to prevent similar situations in the future. This finding, however, reinforces Fraser and other scholars’ notion of online social media as both a subaltern public sphere and a space for reinforcing dominant ideologies and systems of power.

Conclusion

Katie Hill, a former U.S. Congresswoman, was a high-profile victim of nonconsensual image sharing, which sparked widespread media coverage and significant online discussion. Social media discourse helps us to shed light on how different communities experience and perceive intimate image abuse. Perhaps a deeper understanding of the public perceptions of this crime will provide legislators insights when drafting laws to address the unique challenges of this form of digital abuse and harassment. The absence of clear protections for public figures against nonconsensual image distribution—combined with the persistent gendered double standards—suggests a need for both legal and cultural shifts in how such incidents are perceived and addressed. Without these changes, cases like Hill’s will likely continue to serve as cautionary tales rather than catalysts for meaningful reform.

Social media operates as a public sphere in contemporary society, a space for meaning-making. It can both reinforce and challenge hegemonic ideologies. Our hope is that voices in this space can assist in redefining norms and advocating for more responsive laws around privacy and digital consent. The articulation of different narratives—both misogynistic and counter-hegemonic—on social media underscores how meaning is constructed and negotiated through discourse. As Hall’s articulation theory suggests, meaning is not fixed but instead shaped through discourse and the connections made between ideas, power structures, and media representations. The dominant narrative surrounding Hill’s case, laden with victim-blaming and gendered scrutiny, reflects the entrenchment of patriarchal ideologies in digital spaces. However, the emergence of a counter-discourse—challenging the double standards applied to men and women in public life and narratives of victim blaming—underscores how social media functions as a site of ideological struggle, where marginalized voices attempt to reframe the discourse and push for societal change.

Feminist, gender, and media theories help contextualize the disparities in how Hill was treated compared to male politicians embroiled in scandals. The hypervisibility and sexualization of women in media, as theorized by scholars like Laura Mulvey (1975) and Rosalind Gill (2011), illustrate how female bodies are subject to greater scrutiny, particularly when moving outside traditional notions of normative and appropriate sexual behavior. While it is certainly considered improper behavior for an individual in the legislature to have a relationship with a campaign staffer and reason enough to resign, Hill is not alone in engaging in that behavior. But, according to Hinkle (2019), Hill resigned after facing the threat of more photos being released. “In other words: it was the photos, not the consensual relationship, that ended her career in Congress.” This distinction is crucial in understanding the role that nonconsensual image abuse played in shaping Hill’s political career trajectory. While ethical concerns about workplace relationships are valid, Hill’s resignation was ultimately driven by the public exposure and humiliation resulting from the unauthorized release of her private images. This suggests that beyond the act of engaging in a consensual relationship, it was the digital privacy violation—rooted in gendered dynamics and media distribution—that determined the trajectory of her political career.

Our study also showcases the relevance of articulation theory for examining meaning-making in the ever-changing social media environment. Scholarship on online harassment and abuse tends to fall into notions of technological determinism (for instance, that platforms such as X or PornHub cause specific harms) or moral essentialism that frame nonconsensual image abuse as failure of a person’s moral character. But articulation theory stresses that meaning is contingent to the intersection of multiple discursive formations. As our study shows, in order to better understand what things mean “out there,” they must be analytically disaggregated, as intimate image abuse in general, or Hill’s case in particular, do not mean one fixed thing, but are temporarily fixed to certain ideas, themes, and power dynamics that come together in an ongoing discursive struggle.

Thus, articulation theory has provided an insightful analytical tool to examine the way gender dynamics, legal framings, politics, victim blaming, and other elements intertwine contingently. Importantly, tracking discursive struggles entails paying attention to different actors, as well as bridging social media structures and people’s agency without being deterministic. It also helps explain contradictions and constraints in meaning-making, as when nonconsensual image abuse is articulated as both a privacy violation and a public interest disclosure.

Ultimately, this analysis demonstrates that while social media can serve as a space for advocacy and counter-discourse (as many scholars have shown before), it also reinforces deep-seated gender biases that influence how intimate image abuse is perceived and responded to. It also illustrates how little is understood about this new media invasion of privacy. Moving forward, it is imperative that policymakers, social media platforms, and advocacy groups work together to strengthen protections for individuals targeted by such attacks. Without these changes, high-profile cases like Hill’s will continue to serve as cautionary tales, perhaps offering another obstacle for women considering entering public life. Further, the case reinforces the idea that privacy violations are an unfortunate but inevitable consequence of digital visibility. By integrating feminist media perspectives and articulation theory, we can better understand not only the systemic and ideological forces that articulate these narratives but also the potential for digital platforms to serve as spaces for counter-hegemonic discourse, ultimately contributing to cultural and legislative change and greater protections.