Oklahoma’s highest criminal court reverses a 3-year sentence for “posting a video rant about [defendant’s] ex-wife.”
From Meeks v. State, decided Thursday by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, in an opinion authored by Judge Scott Rowland:
Meeks was convicted of Stalking After Actual Notice of Protective Order and received a five-year term in line with the jury’s verdict. The trial judge, Judge Campbell, ordered that Meeks serve three years in prison, with the remaining two years of that term, together with a $10,000 fine, suspended…
Meeks contends that the video he posted attacking his ex-wife constitutes protected speech under the First Amendment and that the stalking statute cannot be used to prosecute him for posting it. The State replies that the case does not rest on what was said, but on the act of uploading the video to YouTube, and that acts that are part of criminal conduct receive no First Amendment protection. This presents an intriguing constitutional issue, but it is not necessary for us to resolve it in this case because the evidence does not adequately support the conviction….
The matter centers on an almost 40-minute YouTube video Meeks posted in May 2023, which was titled “one_reason_men_shouldn’t_get_married” and later forwarded to his ex-wife by her employer… In the video, Meeks mentions his ex-wife and their children by name on several occasions, yet he did not issue any threats. Nevertheless, she testified that Meeks “said horrible things about our children” and that she felt frightened, intimidated, and harassed….
{Oklahoma’s anti-stalking statute provides in relevant part:
… Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly … harasses another person in a manner that:
- Would cause a reasonable person or a member of that person’s immediate family to feel frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested; and
- Actually causes the person being followed or harassed to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested, … [is] guilty of the crime of stalking ….
“Harasses” [is defined] as a “pattern or course of conduct directed toward another individual that includes, but is not limited to, repeated or continuing unconsented contact, that would cause a reasonable person to suffer emotional distress, and that actually causes emotional distress to the victim.”
Meeks’s video post was undisputedly about his ex-wife, and we acknowledge the embarrassment and emotional harm that can accompany being the subject of a spiteful tirade about one’s private life, particularly when aired in such a public forum as YouTube. However, this does not necessarily mean that the offending post was directed toward his ex-wife, and the dispute here highlights that distinction…. “Directed toward” is generally understood to mean intended for a specific recipient, whereas “about” typically refers to the subject matter or topic….
Meeks published the video on his personal YouTube channel. There is no evidence that he tried to share the recording with his ex-wife, such as tagging her or sending it to her directly. No evidence indicates he made her aware of the video, and she acknowledged having had no direct contact with Meeks for years. According to his ex-wife, she learned of the video only after her employer sent her a link, and she chose to view it of her own accord. There is no evidence that Meeks sent the video to her employer or that he played any role in the employer discovering the video.
In the video, Meeks also reveals that he is reading a letter he prepared for the judge who oversaw the protective order hearing, and as he reads, he digresses, speaking about his ex-wife in unflattering terms. He closes by reminding viewers that he is merely exercising his constitutional rights in “reporting my news.” He adds, “Love y’all. Everybody have a good night. I’m missing my daughter. I’m a little drunk tonight.”
He ends by noting that the people around him must endure his continual lament about victimization and remarks that losing contact with his child is, in his view, worse than being subjected to rape. He concludes once again with, “Love y’all. Have a good night. Bye.”
Meeks’s YouTube post was his vehicle for airing grievances with those involved in what he perceives as an unjust removal of his daughter from his life, rather than a campaign of harassment aimed at his ex-wife. The anti-stalking statute is intended to shield a person from unwanted conduct aimed at them personally—conduct meant for their consumption—not to suppress someone from speaking negatively about a private third party to others. In other words, the phrase “directed toward” constrains communication to a specific individual rather than communication about a person in general.
{While we do not resolve the constitutional issue today, we recognize that a broader reading of “directed toward” could touch First Amendment concerns… Statutes that criminalize pure speech must be interpreted with the First Amendment’s requirements clearly in mind. …}
[T]he evidence depicted a jilted ex-husband delivering a drunken tirade to an online audience about his failed marriage and custody dispute. Admittedly, he bluntly discusses his ex-wife’s relationship history with him and other men as a way of expressing his sense of betrayal by her and the system. He emphasizes that he will continue to condemn the perceived injustice he faces at the hands of his ex-wife and the court system.
In today’s age, this scenario resembles a frustrated bar patron voicing his grievances after a difficult breakup, but doing so on social media tends to reach a far wider audience. Nevertheless, Meeks’s behavior did not amount to harassment because it was not directed at his ex-wife….
James Thornley represents Meeks.
