The Record · September 2026
The Court Just Said It: Posting ABOUT Someone Is Not Stalking — Meeks v. State, 2026 OK CR 19
WHAT THE COURT HELD — READ IT YOURSELF
In Meeks v. State, 2026 OK CR 19 (Okla. Crim. App. July 30, 2026), a man posted a nearly forty-minute YouTube rant naming his ex-wife and her children — people protected by an ACTIVE five-year protective order that expressly forbade contact 'via social media platforms even if not sent directly to them.' A Bryan County jury convicted him of felony stalking under 21 O.S. § 1173. Five judges of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals — unanimously — threw the conviction out and ordered the case dismissed. Not retried. DISMISSED.
The holding, in the Court's own words: "'directed toward' limits communication to a person, not communication about a person." Meeks, 2026 OK CR 19, ¶ 11. The stalking statute's definition of 'harasses' requires a course of conduct DIRECTED TOWARD the alleged victim. Meeks never sent the video to his ex-wife. Never tagged her. Had nothing to do with her boss forwarding it to her. So no matter how spiteful, drunken, or public the rant was, the evidence was insufficient AS A MATTER OF LAW under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). The anti-stalking law, the Court explained, exists 'to shield a person from unwanted conduct directed toward them' — 'not to censor someone from randomly talking negatively about a private third party to others.'
WHY THIS MATTERS TO EVERY OKLAHOMAN WITH A KEYBOARD
Understand what just happened. A man with an active protective order against him — one that specifically named social media — posted publicly about the protected person, and the State's highest criminal court said: that is not the crime. Communication ABOUT a person is not communication TO a person. If that holds for him, it holds a fortiori for every citizen who posts public commentary about a PUBLIC OFFICIAL with no protective order in sight. Criticism of government officers occupies the very top of First Amendment protection — and now Oklahoma's own case law says the stalking statute cannot be stretched over posts that were never aimed at the person's own intake.
NOW LOOK AT CF-2025-708
This platform's founder, David Bruce McDermott II, stands charged in Muskogee County No. CF-2025-708 with felony stalking under the SAME statute — 21 O.S. § 1173. The State's accusation, per his sworn filings of record: a years-old statement made to an out-of-state internal-affairs authority, bolted onto Facebook posts of public commentary ABOUT an Oklahoma Highway Patrol trooper. Posts never sent to the trooper. Never tagged to him. Public commentary about a public officer's public conduct. Under Meeks — decided July 30, 2026, six weeks before the District Attorney's most recent response brief — that conduct is not the crime charged. His Reply now before the court says exactly that, with the full citation, alongside Hunter v. United States, No. 24-1063 (U.S. June 18, 2026). The State's brief does not mention Meeks. Silence about controlling authority is itself an answer.
THE RULE OF THIS HOUSE
Every claim above about CF-2025-708 is the founder's sworn allegation or a matter of public docket — allegations, not adjudicated. But Meeks v. State, 2026 OK CR 19, is not an allegation. It is the published, unanimous law of Oklahoma, mandate issued the day it was decided. Read it. Cite it. And if the government is prosecuting you for what you posted ABOUT someone — not what you sent TO them — you now have the Court of Criminal Appeals on your side of the caption. — A.B.M., Counsel of the House
© 2026 David McDermott · LAW SKUNK™ · McSkunkville™ · All Rights Reserved. All characters, lore, artwork and games — Atticus Bradstreet McDermott™, Judge Brett David McSkunk™, David Bradstreet McSkunk™, Jim McSkunk Rockford™, Hugh "Le Pew" McSkunkner™, The Firm, the McSkunkville Casino™ and Series One: The Case of the McSkunk Ruby™ — are original works protected under 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. Unauthorized reproduction or commercial use is prohibited.Sealed in the Copyright Vault →