From Meeks v. State, decided Thursday by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, in an opinion by Judge Scott Rowland:
[Meeks was found guilty of Stalking After Actual Notice of Protective Order and was sentenced] to five years imprisonment in accordance with the jury’s verdict. Judge Campbell ordered Meeks to serve three years in prison, suspending the last two years of the sentence as well as the $10,000.00 fine….
[Meeks] asserts that posting a video rant about his ex-wife was protected speech under the First Amendment and that the stalking statute cannot be used to prosecute him for posting it. The State responds that his prosecution is not based upon the content of his message, but rather on the act of posting it on YouTube, and that such conduct integral to criminal activity enjoys no First Amendment protection. This is an interesting constitutional question, but one we need not settle in this case[, because] … the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction ….
This case involves a nearly 40-minute YouTube video posted by Meeks in May 2023 { titled “one_reason_men_shouldn’t_get_married”} that was forwarded to his ex-wife by her boss…. [In the] video, Meeks referred to [his ex-wife] and her children by name multiple times but made no threats. Nevertheless, she testified that Meeks “said horrible things about our children” and that she felt threatened, intimidated, and harassed….
{Oklahoma’s anti-stalking statute provides in pertinent part:
… Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly … harasses another person in a manner that:
- Would cause a reasonable person or a member of the immediate family of that person … 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 post was undeniably about his ex-wife, and we are not indifferent to the embarrassment and harmful emotional toll being the subject of a spiteful rant concerning one’s personal life can have, especially in such a public forum as YouTube. It does not necessarily follow, however, that the offending post in this case was directed toward Meeks’s ex-wife and this case illustrates that difference…. “Directed toward” is commonly understood to mean intended for or meant for a particular person… “[A]bout,” on the other hand, generally means on the subject of or concerning….
Meeks posted the subject video on a personal YouTube channel. There was no evidence he made any attempt to share the video with his ex-wife, i.e., he neither tagged her nor sent it to her. No evidence showed he made her aware of its existence and she acknowledged she had had no direct contact with or had spoken to Meeks for years. According to Meeks’s ex-wife, she found out about the video when her boss sent her a link to it, and she made the decision to view its content of her own accord. No evidence suggested Meeks sent the video to her boss or had anything to do with her boss’s discovery of the video.
Meeks’s statements in the video also support the finding that the video was not directed toward his ex-wife. Meeks begins the video with a caveat for any police officers watching that he is exercising his constitutional rights. He then explains to any police officers or “jury members” listening that he will be reading a letter he had written to the judge who presided over his protective order hearing. Though the letter was addressed to that judge, he states it is also meant for all the judges in Bryan County “because maybe y’all need to pay attention to what’s going on in y’all’s county.”
As Meeks reads the letter, he goes off script into tangents, talking about his ex-wife in unflattering ways. In closing, he reminds his viewers that he is simply exercising his constitutional rights in “reporting my news.” He says to them, “Love y’all. Everybody have a good night. I’m sorry I’m missing my daughter. I’m a little drunk tonight.”
He concludes, noting the people in his life must put up with him talking constantly about his victimization and observing that having one’s child removed from their life, in his view, is worse than being raped. He ends, telling his audience again, “Love y’all. Have a good night. Bye.”
Meeks’s post on YouTube was his way of airing his grievances with those involved in what he perceives as the unjust taking away of his daughter rather than harassing his ex-wife…. The anti-stalking law is designed to shield a person from unwanted conduct directed toward them, meaning intended for their intake, and not to censor someone from randomly talking negatively about a private third party to others. In other words, “directed toward” limits communication to a person, not communication about a person.
{Although we do not today decide the constitutional question, we are mindful that a broader interpretation of the phrase “directed toward” could implicate First Amendment concerns…. [S]tatutes criminalizing pure speech “must be interpreted with the commands of the First Amendment clearly in mind.” …} …
[T]he evidence showed a purportedly jilted ex-husband engaging in a drunken rant to an internet audience about his failed marriage and custody situation. Admittedly, he crudely explains his ex-wife’s relationship history with him and other men to express his feelings of betrayal by her and the legal system. He is emphatic that he will forever call out the injustice inflicted upon him by his ex-wife and the legal system.
This scenario in today’s world is somewhat akin to the frustrated, drunken bar patron venting to everyone in the vicinity of his voice about the fallout from a bad romance and divorce. Unfortunately, doing so on social media platforms often has a far more widespread audience…. [But] Meeks’s conduct did not constitute harassment because it was not directed toward his ex-wife….
James Thornley represents Meeks.
The post Oklahoma Anti-Stalking Law Bars Certain Unwanted Speech <i>to</i> Target, not Speech <i>About</i> Target appeared first on Reason.com.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/TumJxic
via IFTTT