The Oklahoma State Capital

The context was hard to miss. As Oklahoma State Superintendent of Education Ryan Walters stood outside Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt's office, he vividly described the pain caused to his family as a result of the State Department of Education's “porn” controversy. Walters’ dramatic pronouncement of harm set the stage for possible future legal remedy.

While the bar for a public official to prove defamation is high, a recent theory put forward by Oklahoma House Speaker Kyle Hilbert may have provided Walters with a window, to at the very least file a credible legal action.

Hilbert’s theory—based on information he received from representatives of Samsung, the manufacturer of the television recently assigned to Walters’ office—suggests that Walters’ television may have, unbeknownst to him, reverted to its base format: the default Samsung streaming movie channel. It was there that it displayed an R-rated, 1985 Jackie Chan action movie, The Protector, during the July 24 Board of Education meeting.

The Hilbert theory has become the dominant explanation for the footage that set off a statewide media frenzy, pulling in politicians and law enforcement and potentially costing the taxpayers thousands of dollars in expense, while potentially distracting investigators from the pursuit of actual criminal investigations.

The question now being asked: is there legal repercussion for the school board official who took an R-rated movie, leaked to the media, and then turned it into a possible criminal investigation?

Hilbert's theory appears to be consistent with known facts: An education board official had noted that at the start of the executive session, the television was set to Fox News. This initially suggested that the most likely source for the controversial footage had been Fox coverage of Hulk Hogan. However, if the Hilbert theory is correct, at some point, perhaps when board members were reportedly left alone in the room where they ate lunch, one of them—or perhaps another individual—may have turned off the cable box, thereby ending the Fox News feed. Without detecting an active HDMI-1 input, the television would have reverted to the Samsung TV’s built-in movie channel.

Later during the board meeting, as Board Member Becky Carson alerted Walters to the inappropriate footage, Walters—who reportedly had his back to the screen—struggled to locate the remote control, meaning it may have been moved, and then to operate it. He reportedly assumed the cable box was still running, set to Fox News and suggested that the then on-screen footage—showing two individuals in white coats—was a commercial.

In this scenario, the cable box remote, once located by Walters, would have proved unhelpful, as the cable box had apparently already been turned off. Carson would later claim that Walters said, “I can’t get it to turn off. I can’t figure out how to turn it off.” That response would be consistent with the cable box having already been powered down. Additionally, investigators later determined that the cable box’s remote control had dead or low batteries, potentially complicating Walters’ efforts to shut off the screen.

Private media outlets including NonDoc and The Oklahoman have since reviewed the Chan movie in detail, comparing its scenes to the testimony previously given by Carson and fellow Board Member Ryan Deatherage.

While The Oklahoman now reports that Carson and Deatherage are no longer confirming whether the movie footage matches what they saw, the Hilbert hypothesis has gained traction among media outlets.

But unlike the brief Hogan footage, the longer Jackie Chan action movie may present a more complex legal situation—one that may have board members wishing the earlier hypothesis had, in fact, been correct.

At issue: Would a reasonable person have recognized the Chan movie as an action film—not as a prurient production, as was suggested in Carson’s subsequent complaint? It was that complaint that triggered a law enforcement investigation of Walters.

And by almost immediately leaking their story to the media—instead of first attempting to verify the actual facts with Walters or waiting for the results of the investigation—could a case be made that the members acted with reckless disregard for the truth?

Carson’s potential liability lies in her decision to use the term “pornography” in a formal emailed complaint submitted to the State’s Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES). In that complaint, Carson presented herself as a victim, explicitly named Superintendent Ryan Walters, and called for the preservation and forensic examination of his government-issued devices by state officials.

Upon confirming reception of the complaint, OMES almost immediately forwarded it to law enforcement, notably, even though it was late, at 10:40 p.m. on a Friday night.

The fact that Carson not only invoked the term “pornography,” but also implied the potential need for prosecution—specifically requesting the seizure and analysis of Walters’ devices—could raise the question of actual malice. Walters could attempt to assert that Carson acted with reckless disregard for the truth, particularly given that the term “pornography” has a specific connotation under the U.S. Supreme Court’s Miller test—a test that the Department of Education’s administrative rules effectively duplicate as they define the term “pornographic.”

The material in question—a 1985 R-rated Jackie Chan action movie—contains brief, non-sexual nudity but does not meet any legal or regulatory definition of obscene material under state law or FCC standards. In essence, it is not obscene, prurient, or graphic in a way that would justify a criminal investigation.

This mismatch between Carson’s accusation and the actual content—combined with her suggestion of potential prosecution, her decision to speak to the media before allowing an internal investigation to determine the truth, and her choice to participate in a high-profile News 9 interview, even after Walters had vociferously proclaimed his innocence—potentially strengthens the argument that her statement was not only incorrect, but made with reckless indifference to its truth or falsity.

As he seeks to prove reputational damage, Walters can also point to other comments made by Carson during that interview, including her claim that she had received hundreds of emails from people comparing the situation to abuse. Carson also stated that she had received personal benefit from the ordeal, describing “gifts” being sent to her.

Further bolstering Walters’ potential case are the comments of fellow board member Ryan Deatherage. His remarks during the interview may have created the impression that the nudity in question was sustained and central to the viewing experience—something more characteristic of a pornographic film than a mainstream action movie. In describing scenes featuring clothed actors, Deatherage prefaced his description by saying, “those were the ones who had clothes on,” emphasizing the word “had”—potentially implying that nudity was the norm rather than the exception. He also emphasized the “shock factor” of the experience, saying it was hard to describe—an emotional reaction more consistent with the viewing of pornography than an old Jackie Chan action movie.

As Walters makes his case for reckless disregard, he is likely to point to the fact that he publicly announced he had been cleared by OMES investigators. That assertion was based on his real-time interaction with forensic investigators, who reportedly attempted to cast content to the Samsung TV but were unable to do so due to network restrictions—making it highly unlikely that any of Walters’ personal devices could have pushed content to the screen.

Despite this, and despite Walters’ public statement asserting that he had been vindicated, the two board members still chose to appear on KWTV for the heavily emphasized interview—an interview that took up nearly the entire 4:00 p.m. hour.

Going Silent

Deatherage, for his part, appears to have stopped speaking publicly about the footage. The Oklahoman reported Tuesday that he intended to remain silent pending the ongoing investigations by the Oklahoma County Sheriff’s Office and the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation.

There are also signs that Carson and Deatherage may be hesitant to fully endorse the Hilbert hypothesis. The Oklahoman reported that:

“Carson and Deatherage did not say whether scenes from The Protector aligned with what they reported seeing on the TV.”

Legal Action Could Explore Stitt’s Involvement

Walters may have an additional incentive to file legal action: it could provide an opportunity to explore the board members’ communication with Governor Kevin Stitt. Walters has previously indicated that Stitt was involved in elevating the controversy.

While corporate media sources have largely downplayed Walters’ concerns, the late Friday night involvement of OMES in immediately forwarding the investigation to law enforcement is indicative of a central services agency that was hyper focused on the matter. That agency is by design, an arm of the Governor's office and suggests an urgency indicative of Stitt's involvement.

Stay with OklahomaStateCapital.com for future reports on this ongoing story.

MORE: OPINION: How The Vindication of Ryan Walters Gives Kevin Stitt a Second Chance.

MORE:Domesticated Warrior - Pixels, Politics, and the Price of Hysteria.