Generally speaking, in cases of defamation, there is a exception for information that is "in the public interest", which does not necessarily mean information that the public wishes to know, but rather information the public needs to know in order to maintain the "public good", such as there being an informed electorate.

At first glance, the difference in the public interest in the materially similar information in the two cases is starkly contrasting, simply because of the professions of the two plaintiffs, as well as their relationships with their "recording partners" (for lack of a better term).

In the first case, Terry Gene Bollea was victorious, as he was working as an entertainer, under the stagename "Hulk Hogan", and his companion was the wife of a fellow entertainer. From the perspective of the public good, this is not worthwhile information.

In the second case, there are two reasons the reported information falls into the domain of the public interest. Firstly, Hill was a serving Federal Congressional Representative, so she is automatically a person of public interest.

Secondly, as noted, it violated the norms of her position, and lead to her investigation by the House Ethics Committee and her resignation. There is an intentionally large whole in US defamation law for governmental figures, and especially their wrong-doing.

Wether or not the report was politically motived or not, exposing the wrong doing of government figures is one of the major reasons for freedom of the press; Benjamin Franklin himself got into legal trouble for doing similarly. As a result, US defamation law has much larger protections for news reports on governmental figures.

Generally speaking, in cases of defamation, there is a exception for information that is "in the public interest", which does not necessarily mean information that the public wishes to know, but rather information the public needs to know in order to maintain the "public good", such as there being an informed electorate.

At first glance, the difference in the public interest in the materially similar information in the two cases is starkly contrasting, simply because of the professions of the two plaintiffs, as well as their relationships with their "recording partners" (for lack of a better term).

In the first case, Terry Gene Bollea was victorious, as he was working as an entertainer, under the stagename "Hulk Hogan", and his companion was the wife of a fellow entertainer. From the perspective of the public good, this is not worthwhile information.

In the second case, there are two reasons the reported information falls into the domain of the public interest. Firstly, Hill was a serving Federal Congressional Representative, so she is automatically a person of public interest.

Secondly, as noted, it violated the norms of her position, and lead to her investigation by the House Ethics Committee and her resignation. There is an intentionally large hole in US defamation law for governmental figures, and especially their wrongdoing.

Whether or not the report was politically motived or not, exposing the wrongdoing of government figures is one of the major reasons for freedom of the press; Benjamin Franklin himself got into legal trouble for doing similarly. As a result, US defamation law has much larger protections for news reports on governmental figures.