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.]

Comments

[Frank Drackman]

I'm gonna be like Ted "the Thumper" Williams and let this BP Fastball go right down the middle

[Supremacy Claus]

The age of majority is another dumbass lawyer denial of reality. Nature says, adulthood is at 14. An adult plant is defined as one capable of reproduction. The world's religions have their adulthood rituals around that age. For 10,000 years of human civilization, one learned one's trade at 12. One set out on one's own at 14, got married a t 16, and engaged in adult functions thereafter. Those teen years are those of top function, physically and mentally. Thanks to the toxic lawyer profession, they are totally wasted in a worthless babysitting service called high school, instead of on productive activity, including child bearing and raising.

As to criminal responsibility, teens have a lower crime rate, are more moral than people in their 20's. The leftists would have adulthood moved to 25, to reduce criminal responsibility. The completion of myelinization in the frontal lobes, means the end of efficient and quick learning.

All school programs should be pushed up by 2 years. The extra 2 years would be taught by having kids study from 6 AM to 10 PM. In Asia, they are not learning by rote during those hours. They are learning creative problem solving, you lawyer dummy. That means our average 8th grader would have 10 years of school. At 15, enter your occupation, including professional school. If the latter requires learning a 2000 page book every 12 weeks, then the 16 year old is far more fit to do that than the totally deteriorated 22 year old. Look at entering freshman in college, then at sophomores. Their asses got fat. The same devastation has happened to their brains.

As to maturity, it does not come from time. It comes from effort, failure, pain, punishment, and from learning from those.

Get rid of high school if we are to compete with the Chinese adversary. First get rid of the toxic denier lawyer profession destroying our nation.

[Lee Moore]

Actually nature doesn’t say that adulthood is at 14. Adulthood qua reproductive maturity varies from person to person but it is also significantly affected by nutrition. Well fed children get to reproductive maturity quicker - which is hardly a surprise evolutionarily.

Hence in the past when food was harder to come by menarche arrived later on average than it does now. Obviously children of wealthy parents were well fed hence all those teenage princesses getting started early on their twelve children.

[Supremacy Claus]

Thanks to the obesity epidemic, menarche has gotten earlier. It is just distasteful to say, adulthood should start at 12. As to maternal morbidity in adolescence, it comes from lower class, low IQ, and from lack of adequate prenatal care. Middle class maternal morbidity is average in adolescence.

[Supremacy Claus]

Ephebophilia is not a disorder:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia

According to the Equity Theory, age differences in couples makes sense. The older partner gets low mileage, less traumatized, nicer partner, plus more physically fetching. The younger partner gets deeper appreciation of personal value, financial security, learns a lot of mature world and behavior, and is less likely to be used as a toilet and fuck doll 5 times a day, 7 minutes each.

[Supremacy Claus]

There is a drop in IQ of a point a year. That means the average 50 year old qualifies for special ed in high school. The scores have to be cut in half to keep the IQ at 100 for the 50 year old. Imagine the IQ performance at 60 to 80. Thanks to the lawyer dummy, we are ruled by retards with IQ scores of 50 compared to 16 year olds.

[Supremacy Claus]

It is not 2 years, lawyer dummy. Kids are ahead by 3 years in Asia. This analysis is obsolete. They are no longer by rote. They are learning by creative problem solving with AI. Gt rid of Education Law. These scumbags are out to destroy our nation and to empower its adversaries.

Why People Say Asian Schools Are “Ahead”

Curriculum Pace

In countries like Singapore, South Korea, Japan, and China, students are often introduced to advanced math concepts (like algebra, geometry, and calculus basics) several years earlier than U.S. students.

Science subjects (biology, chemistry, physics) also start earlier and are pursued more rigorously.

Instruction Hours

Students in East Asia typically spend more time in school and attend after-school “cram schools” (juku in Japan, hagwons in Korea).

This extra instruction time pushes them further ahead in terms of content mastery.

International Benchmarks

On assessments like PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment), students in Singapore, South Korea, and China regularly score at the top, while the U.S. ranks in the middle of developed nations.

Analysts sometimes estimate that this gap translates into 2–3 years of learning difference by high school.

Cultural Expectations

Academic achievement is heavily emphasized in many Asian cultures, and competition for university placement drives high standards.

Parents and students often view mastery of advanced content as non-negotiable.

Caveats

Not all subjects: The gap is most pronounced in math and science; in reading/language, U.S. students aren’t as far behind.

Equity tradeoff: Asian systems tend to have more uniformity but also higher stress and less emphasis on creativity. U.S. schools, while slower academically, put more focus on extracurriculars, arts, and social development.

Variation in U.S. schools: Some American districts (especially magnet or accelerated programs) are on par with or ahead of average Asian schools.

So, the “3 years ahead” claim is a simplification, but in math and science by late middle school, many East Asian students really are working at levels U.S. students won’t see until high school.

[Supremacy Claus]

Thanks to Education Law, and to pro-criminal scumbag judges, American schools stink in every way. The toxic lawyer profession must by crushed to save American education.

Asian students are not biologically superior to Americans. There is only one way to learn any skill, through repetition. They put in the time. Students disrupting the learning of others are just beaten everyday. That includes public caning. The other students will stop the thug themselves. You must respect the teacher, or the overly assertive parent gets beaten.

Grade-Level Comparison: Singapore vs. U.S. Math
1. Early Elementary (Grades 1–2)

Singapore introduces multiplication, division, and fractions earlier:

Multiplication and division concepts appear in first grade (wide in U.S. by second).

By second grade, Singapore includes multiple facets of fractions; U.S. Common Core does not even list fraction standards at that grade.

2. Middle Elementary (Grades 3–4)

Singapore students master multiplication/division facts through 5s in Grade 2, and tackle long division by Grade 3—a year or more ahead of typical U.S. pacing.
Conversely, U.S. curriculums often spread these topics across later grades.

3. Program Sequence and Pacing

All Singapore Math programs share a common pedagogy: Concrete–Pictorial–Abstract (CPA), bar-modeling, and focus on deep mastery rather than surface coverage.

They typically progress more rapidly through content than standard U.S. curricula. Placement tests are recommended to match students properly.

Singapore consistently scores among the highest globally in math and science (e.g., TIMSS), while U.S. students fall notably behind in these subjects at equivalent grade levels.

[Z Crazy]

Its amazing how Singapore does it.

What laws does Singapore have that created this result?

[Brett Bellmore]

A lot of that is American schools dumbing everything down to the 95th percentile student, instead of teaching things as fast as the individual student can absorb it, and just accepting that not everybody is going to learn the same things at the same pace.

[Lee Moore]

Probably mean 5th percentile, which is unfair. It's more likely 25th percentile or so.

[Supremacy Claus]

If you are stupid, you are not off the hook. It means you need more repetition to learn the material.

[Brett Bellmore]

You could phrase that better, but you're not entirely wrong or right. It's not remotely linear, and some of it is a shift in brain function from emphasizing learning new things easily, to not forgetting what you've already learned.

That's why people remember so little of their childhoods, while having no trouble decades later remembering events in their 20's; Neural plasticity drops dramatically in your teens and early 20's, making it harder to learn, but easier to retain memories.

So, you're not necessarily much stupider dealing with subjects you've already learned. Just if somebody springs something completely novel on you.

There are, by the way, experimental drugs that actually fix that problem. Naturally, with the consequence that you also return to forgetting stuff as fast as a teen, too.

[ReaderY]

As in many matters in society, there is a conflict between maximizing personal liberty and address the needs of society and others. Speed limits are a good example. A state can maximize safety by outlawing automobiles entirely as inherently dangerous if it wants to, or it could maximize liberty by not having any speed limits. Speed limits are a kind of compromise.

In my view, mores regarding sex have a similar role. While you are entitled to emphasize liberty, a legislature is perfectly entitled to disagree with you and emphasize safety. Sex has consequences that young people in particular are not necessarily equipped to handle. An age of consent can be thought of as a sort of compromise, like a speed limit, between the two extremes.

[David Nieporent]

The age of majority is another dumbass lawyer denial of reality. Nature says, adulthood is at 14. An adult plant is defined as one capable of reproduction. The world's religions have their adulthood rituals around that age. For 10,000 years of human civilization, one learned one's trade at 12. One set out on one's own at 14, got married a t 16, and engaged in adult functions thereafter.

This sounds like either a confession or a cry for help by Behar.

[Supremacy Claus]

David is a lawyer denier. He is not stupid, just a bad person, like a 9/11 Truther or a Holocaust denier.

[Bubba Jones]

" I expect that finding post-pubescent but underage women sexually attractive is quite normal"

I see that someone skipped media training.

I suppose that it's no defense for Baird to argue that he is not currently a pedo, and that past convictions to not speak to current circumstances.

Proof that you can find a lawyer to take any case.

[John F. Carr]

In my state the ancient rule had the age of consent around ten or twelve. Above that age sex was the lesser offense of fornication if the girl was not married or adultery if she was married to somebody else.

We have to accept that words are defined by their common use unless context implies a more technical meaning. A "pedo" is somebody you don't like who likes girls younger than 18 or so. An allegation of clinical pedophilia would be judged more strictly.

[Lee Moore]

Because our society is obsessed with sex as recreation, as opposed to sex as reproduction, social mores have changed.

In the past nobody worried too much that a girl might be insufficiently emotionally mature to have sex. Whatever that means. Ever met a 26 year old ?

The concern would be physical maturity and not getting pregnant without a man to support you and your baby. Stirring in a bit of the wrath of God for good measure.

On that thinking there’s nothing remotely wrong with a reproductively mature girl getting married at 14 and starting to produce babies right away. But plenty wrong with fornication at any age.

As Bubba says, you’re not supposed to say that 14 year old girls are sexually attractive to normal heterosexual men, but they obviously are. And everyone knows it, not least the gals themselves.

[David Nieporent]

As Bubba says, you’re not supposed to say that 14 year old girls are sexually attractive to normal heterosexual men, but they obviously are. And everyone knows it, not least the gals themselves.

They are not. A lot of people think so because the actresses who play high schoolers in the movies/on TV are significantly older, so people think 14 year olds look a lot older than they do in real life. That's not to say, of course, that there are no 14 year olds who look mature, particularly with sufficient cosmetics. But most of them — we're talking about high school fresh(wo)men here — look like children.

[Supremacy Claus]

More contorted lawyer denier bullshit with exceptions to the exceptions from David, a lawyer denier. There is no talking to deniers, only cancelling deniers. His denier profession must be cancelled to save our nation.

[Lee Moore]

I'm getting a vision of a middle aged man living in a basement watching movies and TV shows intended for teens. And never stepping outside and seeing what other actual humans look like.

But as we're on the movies, I take it that your view is that most heterosexual men wouldn't have found the 14 year old Sue Lyon attractive in Lolita. Or was it all the make up she was wearing ?

[David Nieporent]

I'm getting a vision of a middle aged man living in a basement watching movies and TV shows intended for teens. And never stepping outside and seeing what other actual humans look like.

Do you think many middle-aged men regularly stand around outside schoolyards studying teenage girls?

[ReaderY]

As the first change made in the original common-law age of consent of 12, a number of states sometime in the early 20th century passed “carnal knowledge” or similarly worded laes prohibiting sex with a “virtuous female” under 14. The state had to prove she was a virgin under a presumption that she wasn’t.

In many states laws that didn’t have virginity as an element didn’t come until the mid 20th century or later.

[Mike Hansberry]

Did you mean to write the word "no" in the last sentence? It seems that you agree that the use of "pedo" is close enough to be substantially true.

[Eugene Volokh]

D'oh! Fixed, thanks.

[Thomas L. Knapp]

"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"

Try the early 2000s.

[Brett Bellmore]

Like, today?

There are a fair number of states where those 15 or even younger can consent to sex legally, so long as the older partner is less than some small number of years older. And 18 year olds ARE adults, after all.

For instance, in Hawaii, 14 and 15 year old girls could consent to sex with men who were no more than 5 years older.

I think he's confusing "adult men" and "arbitrarily old" men.

[Eugene Volokh]

1. I did indeed use "adult men" to refer to adult men generally (including a 27-year-old), rather than to some small set of just-turned-adult men.

2. I believe Hawaii was the last state to move the age of consent up from 14, in 2001; but it was an outlier then, and to my knowledge only a handful of states had the age of consent at 14 into the late 1900s. From what I've seen, the last time that many American states had the age of consent at 14 was the late 1800s (and maybe the early 1900s), though I might be mistaken.

[Supremacy Claus]

Those are lawyer made up ages to prevent superior people from entering the job market and outperforming the lawyer client. Again, the lawyer ages are divorced from biological, religious realities, and the reality of 10000 years of human civilization. The age of majority is added to the list of lawyer fictions. Anytime a judge says, a legal citation is fake from AI, point out most of the lawyer doctrines are supernatural and fake.

[dwb68]

"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."

LMAO

Volokh wins the internetz for today, lolz. If emojis and likes were allowed, a trophy would be in order.

[hobie]

Aren't we not supposed to be talking about this subject?

[Social Justice is neither]

" I agree that "pedo" is close enough not to be substantially true." Are you sure this is is substantially not true? Seems in context it's quite true if not necessarily the psychological pathology version. But much like calling people a racist or Nazi, when is strict definitional truth a requirement when a term is used more broadly in a colloquial manner.

[AbsolutMauser]

I think that's a typo. The "not" should not be there.

[Eugene Volokh]

Yes, fixed, thanks!

[AbsolutMauser]

Wow, I did not have "Defenders of sex with underage girls come out to argue with Volokh" on my Internet Bingo card for today.

[Z Crazy]

Justice Musk once pointed out that in California, 10 years was once NOT considered underage. That was in his dissent in Michael v. Supreme Court.

[VinniUSMC]

Talking about evolutionary biology versus the laws and ethics of modern humanity is hardly "defend[ing] sex with underage girls".

SPB and jeffy hardly make it to this part of Reason.

[ReaderY]

Professor Volokh,

There’s an error. This conduct was legal until at least the late 1900s in many American states, not the late 1800s.

While I think the decision is correct, it’s been my view that once children hit puberty, how to handle sex is a matter of societal mores and not absolute rules. As you note, the range of ages of consent is quite broad in the world even today, and has been younger in earlier times. And many societies continue to penalize sex outside of marriage regardless of age. While society can certainly decide that its evolving structure requires children to spend more time developing and begin thinking about sex at an older age (good luck with that), this is essentially a morals decision, and it would be inaccurate to call it anything else.

While society’s needs can change and the law can require people to change their conduct to conform when legislatures determine that this is needed, what was previously completely legal and commonly done does not suddenly become either a medical/psychological disease nor a crime of violence just because society has decided its needs have changed.

Nonetheless because the state has made this conduct a crime, the epithet used is not substantially false as a matter of libel law.

[Krayt]

The suing lawyer doesn't want to sue for tiny amounts. One third of tiny amounts is so tiny it's not worth is. They need the cachet of "pedo" and "rape", to suggest to the images of beating the shit out of an 8 year old.

This has gone way beyond underage consenting sex, and invaded adult female sex, which was what all the consenting forms and so on at colleges is about. You'll even lose your federal money unless you implement panic responses to this Prime Evil.

Well! Even more to sue over.

Forbidden topics. Even that status helps the lawyer maximize his pocket.

[tkamenick]

Yes. While I tend to understand "pedophilia" as meaning prepubescent, this is sufficiently close to be substantially true, in the same sense that calling OJ Simpson a murderer is substantially true even without a criminal conviction and calling somebody "crazy" without a clinical diagnosis is substantially true.

Might be closer if they had said "convicted of pedophilia" but I'd still err on the side of "let people say what they want, government doesn't have to get involved".

[wvattorney13]

I disagree with this. If I say that OJ is a murderer, I am saying that notwithstanding the jury verdict, I believe he is factually guilty. Or that despite a diagnosis, I believe someone is crazy. The both are really opinions anyways.

In this case the defendant made a claim that incredibly you and EV deem substantially true is in fact more accurately described as totally false.

I mean 18 would be legal, and 11 would be pedophilia, so 15 is "close enough"? What else can I shade that way and get away with defamation? What if 0 drinks were ideal for driving and 5 would be considered drunk and you had 2.

Would it be "close enough" if I went all over town telling everyone that you were driving drunk? How does this "close enough" principle work?

[David Nieporent]

I mean, you're a lawyer, right? Have you considered firing up Westlaw (or Lexis, if that's how you roll) and investigating the "gist" doctrine in defamation law?

[Roger S]

A lot of people say that Jeffrey Epstein was a pedophile, but that is not really correct in the sense of a psychological abnormality.

[Brett Bellmore]

Arguing the difference between ephebophilia and pedophilia, while it actually IS an important difference, (The former is biologically normal but widely frowned on, the latter mentally abnormal and a crime.) isn't a winning move in most public contexts.

[David Nieporent]

There's a recent stand up comedian who has a bit about that — I forget which one, right now — and part of his punchline (paraphrased) is that "Yes, technically pedophilia and hebephilia/ephebophilia are different, but there is absolutely no way to make that distinction without sounding like a pedophile."

[Michael Ejercito]

Especially in front of fathers of teen girls.

[Bwaaah]

Notice how Frank Drackman just stands there at the plate, letting this one go by? He's got daughters (I think), not even still teens, and still he's not taking a swing.

Taboos...real triggering shit...practitioners and demons and townspeople with burning torches. I try to sit that stuff out...stay home...maybe peer out the window now and then. But when those stories come around, I don't want to be in any of them.

That stuff stains.

[Bwaaah]

Yes, she was a minor at the time. But so was I. So I get a pass, right?

Right?

(I was trying to be smart about this, like Frank Drackman, but I couldn't help myself.)

[Bruce Hayden]

Tying this into modern politics, the Epstein girls that got him in trouble as a pedo were 16 and 17. You see pictures of them, and they could have passed for college co-eds. Just entering their maximum sexual attractiveness. What’s humorous there to me is that disgraced British Royal Randy Andy probably didn’t do anything wrong in his home country, with a lower age of consent.

To me, the problem is setting the age of consent at 18, and the assumption that there is something wrong with men being sexually attracted to young women at these ages. I don’t think that there is anything perverted about those men. Indeed, I would guess that most normal heterosexual males have been visually attracted to these young women. But I do think that attraction to prepubescent girls is perverted. I would maybe draw the line the way that some states do - under aged kids can have sex with those within, say, 3 years of their age. Maybe pointing on that banning sex before, say, 12 or 14 is malum in se, while sex with 16-17 year olds in malum prohibitum.

The problem, to me, is that unjustly calling someone a pedophile is probably defamation, per se. That would be fine, if the offense were malum in se. But for sex with young adult females, it is, instead, malum prohibitum.

[wvattorney13]

I knew that truth was a defense to defamation, but I never knew that close enough for government work was a doctrine that applied here.

I would have ruled the other way, but convicted child sex abusers aren't at the top of the heap to get favorable judicial opinions.

[NvEric]

Law is not about crossing T's and doting I's it seems with this legal outcome, but rather based on the ingrained bias and human nature of a judge, much like the cases against Trump.