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 …
Um, for a year and a half, he thought she was over 18 when she was only 15? Was she 14 then when he was 26 or she was 15 when he was 27 and then became 28 when she turned 16? Either way, this is beyond the Romeo and Juliet span of law.
What the court just sanctioned is once one of these people named then always the name of the person named without any matter of distinction of rehab, etc. So, then the court has said, once a drunk driver, always a drunk driver, right? We should ask a certain political lobbyist in FLA about that moniker whose kinfolk is an elected FLA person and has a disdain for PFRs.
Biased judge and he ought to lose his seat.
There’s a lot of substantially true things we can then call politicians, prosecutors, and judges that revel in all this.
These stories always bring me back to my high school days in the 80’s. Girls, freshmen year and up (so that would be as young as 14), often “dated” much older guys. In college or otherwise. I didn’t know anyone with a 27 yo, but with 19, 20, 21 was not uncommon. These girls were not “abused”. They consented even though the law does not recognize that consent. Is it right that these relationships existed? Probably not good for the young girl, but I have to go back to the parenting and responsibility for oneself as a teenager is not the same as a child. Should it be illegal? Yes there must be some level of accountability, but assuming consensual, I don’t know that it’s child abuse unless the young person was manipulated.
The word “pedo” has become bastardized in America as a pejorative slang term used intentionally to rile emotions and elicit hate.
I wonder if the Baird could sue Illinois for libel due to its ambiguity such that it allows Reyes to “assume” Baird’s offense legally categorizes him as a p*d*phile. Getting labeled a p*d*phile induces more hatred such that in jail, a person will be targeted or murdered.
Is rape and statutory rape the same crime to be called “substantially true”? There is a world of difference in the language, especially in the court of law. Similarly, there is a world of difference for sex crimes under the legal age of consent.
Attraction levels with respect to Medical and Legal Terminology
Ped*phile = prepubescent
Heb*phile = cusp of pubescent, ages 11 to 14
Eph*bophiles = arrived a puberty, ages 15 to 16
(some states and countries have ag 16 as legal age of consent, which the article denoted)
Tel*iophile = 17 years of age or older
———————
Ger*ntophile = the elderly
Illinois does have a defamation law. Baird is not a ped*phile if his crime was with a 15 year old. The court documents reveals that fact publicly. Being labeled a ped*phile introduces far more animosity as well as trouble.
If Reyes can say Baird is a pedo, then Baird can call up the police and cite that Reyes has targeted him for pre-meditated murder. That’s substantially true since Reyes is using slang intentions with the use of pedo included in his Facebook post. Why isn’t Reyes already brought into questioning and monitored now that Reyes has murderous intentions.
That example is what the courts wish to be oblivious about. Pedo labelling invokes murderous intentions, which Reyes clearly posted online.
Actually, it’s not substantially true. Pedophilia is an attraction specifically to PREPUBESCENT children. It is an unfortunate fact of nature that some are afflicted with it, and it had absolutely nothing to do with whatever arbitrary age any given state has applied to its laws. It’s pretty aggravating that most people, even some on anti-registry forums, keep overlooking that.
So basically, he was 26 and she was 14, when they met, either way it’s still weird Hella strange and a bit creepy.
Using this judge’s own logic, I can refer to her as a DEI hire or a racial epithet and it would be “substantially true.”