Calling Man with Sex Offense Conviction for Having Sex (When 27) with 15-Year-Old-Girl "Pedo" Is Substantially True

From Baird v. Reyes, decided yesterday by Judge Andrea Wood (N.D. Ill.):

Baird's three-page handwritten complaint … alleges that, on February 14, 2024, Reyes posted on his Facebook page an image of Baird with the text: "If anyone sees this fucking pedo with my kid and baby momma, let me know immediately." …

Here, the Court finds that the facts surrounding his conviction reveal that Baird, as an adult, had a sexual relationship with a minor, and such conduct is commonly associated with the term pedophile. As Baird himself acknowledges, his [1999] conviction for Aggravated Criminal Sexual Abuse arose from his year-and-a-half sexual relationship with a 15-year-old girl when he was 27 years old. As a result of that conviction, he is classified under Illinois law as a "child sex offender." Accordingly, Baird is required to register as a sex offender in Illinois. And the public registry on which Baird is listed is labeled "Child Sex Offender Information." Finally, Reyes's post referring to Baird as a "pedo" was commenting on and included a screenshot of that registration.

{In assessing the substantial truth of an allegedly defamatory statement, the relevant inquiry is whether the "gist" or "sting" of the statement is true. "[I]f the gist of a defamatory statement is true, if in other words the statement is substantially true, error in detail is not actionable."} Viewing all these facts together, the Court concludes that the "gist" or "sting" of Reyes's use of a slang term for pedophile was substantially true….

Baird disputes the substantial truth of Reyes's "pedo" accusation, arguing that he had only a single relationship with a minor teenager who he mistakenly believed to be over the age of 18. Essentially, Baird claims that the specific circumstances underlying his conviction establish that he does not meet the criteria of a pedophile—i.e., an adult with an inherent attraction to children. However, substantial truth in this case does not demand that Baird exactly match the clinical or technical definition of the term.

It is enough that the public would generally understand the term to refer broadly to adults who engage in sexual conduct with minors, with "minor" not limited to just prepubescent children but encompassing anybody under 18 years old. Nor does Baird's subjective but mistaken belief regarding the minor's age change the nature of the conduct established by his conviction or the fact that, based on that conviction alone, Illinois law classifies him as a "child sex offender."

Ultimately, Reyes's use of the word "pedo" reflected Baird's Aggravated Criminal Sexual Abuse conviction and his lifetime registration as a "child sex offender." And Reyes used the word in a post that included a screenshot of Baird's child-sex-offender registration. Those judicially noticeable facts establish the substantial truth of Reyes's statement….

I think this is basically correct. I'm not sure whether, as a psychiatric matter, being sexually attracted to a presumably post-pubescent 15-year-old would quite count as "pedophilia" in the sense of an aberrant psychological condition. Adult men having sex with 15-year-old girls is generally wrong, I think (even though it's actually legal in many European countries and was apparently legal until the late 1800s in many American states, which suggests that there is difference of opinion on the subject even within our general culture). But that's not because it's a sign of psychological abnormality—indeed,  I expect that finding post-pubescent but underage women sexually attractive is quite normal, just as wanting to punch people who say things that offend you is normal or wanting to steal valuable goods is normal: The problem with the behavior is ethical, not psychological. But in the context of characterizing a man's sex offense conviction, I agree that "pedo" is close enough to be substantially true.

UPDAT 8/27/25 10:53 am: Very sorry: Due to an editing error, I had originally said "not to be substantially true" rather than than "to be substantially true" in the last sentence; I corrected that. Thanks to reader Mike Hansberry for pointing this out.]