September 10, 2026 | Freeport, IL
Presented by Sarah Collins
CRIME & PUNISHMENT | F4F NEWS
There are two words being thrown around Freeport with remarkable frequency lately:
Libel. Slander.
Sometimes they are used as accusations. Sometimes as threats. Sometimes as warnings directed at people who criticize public officials, question community leaders or simply repeat something another person does not want discussed. But there is an important problem: calling something “libel” does not make it libel, and calling something “slander” does not make it slander.
Disagreeing with someone, criticizing someone, embarrassing someone or publishing something that makes someone angry does not automatically constitute defamation under Illinois law. So, with those words circulating throughout the Freeport community, Crime & Punishment decided it was time to explain what they actually mean.
First: What Is Defamation?
Libel and slander are both forms of defamation. Traditionally, libel refers to defamatory statements published in writing or another fixed form, while slander generally refers to spoken defamatory statements.
But whichever word is used, Illinois law requires substantially more than someone simply claiming, “That statement hurt my reputation.” Illinois courts have explained that a defamation plaintiff generally must establish that the defendant made a false statement concerning the plaintiff, that there was an unprivileged publication of that statement to a third party, and that the publication caused damage.
That first word matters: false.
Truth is a defense to defamation. Illinois' Slander and Libel Act expressly permits a defendant to establish the truth of the challenged statement. That means an uncomfortable statement is not defamatory merely because it damages someone's reputation.
A statement can be embarrassing, harsh or politically damaging. It can make someone furious. And it can still be legally protected. The central question isn't whether somebody disliked hearing it. The question starts with whether the allegedly defamatory assertion of fact was false.
Opinions Aren't Automatically Defamation Either
There is another misconception worth clearing up: people are allowed to have opinions.
Calling a decision “terrible,” describing someone's conduct as “irresponsible,” questioning an elected official's judgment or arguing that an appointment is inappropriate does not automatically create a defamation claim simply because the subject believes the criticism is unfair.
But attaching the words “I think” or “in my opinion” is not a magic shield either. Illinois courts look beyond labels. A purported opinion can still raise defamation issues when it reasonably communicates a verifiable false assertion of fact.
That distinction matters enormously in political and community debate. Saying, “I don't think she should serve on the library board,” is fundamentally different from inventing a specific factual allegation about that person and presenting it as true. One is an expression of opinion. The other may raise very different legal questions.
Why Is Everyone Talking About Defamation Now?
Freeport did not suddenly discover the words libel and slander on September 8. Those terms have increasingly entered local conversation following several high-profile disputes in northwest Illinois—including an actual defamation lawsuit involving a local elected official and a Freeport teacher.
State Senator Andrew Chesney, who represents Illinois' 45th Senate District and is currently the Republican nominee for reelection, filed a defamation lawsuit against Freeport teacher Shane Orlow. That lawsuit matters to this discussion because Chesney's complaint puts many of the concepts we are talking about here directly into a local courtroom: What constitutes a statement of fact? What is opinion? Was a statement false? Was it defamatory? And when the person claiming defamation is a public official, can the required constitutional standard be met?
The filing of a lawsuit, of course, does not establish that defamation occurred. A complaint contains the plaintiff's allegations, and those allegations must ultimately be evaluated through the legal process. But the Chesney-Orlow case helped bring the word “defamation” out of law books and into conversations happening right here in Freeport.
Then came another lawsuit. Beloved Church Pastor Stephen Cassell filed suit against Laura Andrews, the mother of two young girls connected to allegations that Cassell touched girls inappropriately at the now-closed ARC school in Stockton. That lawsuit was ultimately dismissed with prejudice.
Once again, accusations involving speech, reputation and the threat of civil liability were suddenly part of a very public local controversy. And then came September 8 and the Freeport City Council meeting.
Then Came City Hall
The council chambers were packed as Mayor Jodi Miller presented Renee Blazeski for appointment to a vacant seat on the Freeport Public Library Board. Before the meeting, a Change.org petition opposing Blazeski's appointment had circulated throughout social media.
During public comment at the September 8 meeting, Kathy Hale-Robinson addressed the mayor, City Council, city staff and those assembled in the chambers. During those remarks, Hale-Robinson made statements attributing the Change.org petition to Fighting4Freeport.
Fighting4Freeport did not create, author or sponsor that petition.
That distinction matters. It is one thing to criticize Fighting4Freeport for reporting on the controversy, sharing information about the proposed appointment or expressing an opinion about a public appointment. It is another thing to attribute a specific action to an organization that the organization says it did not take.
Hale-Robinson ultimately invoked libel while criticizing Fighting4Freeport and appeared to extend responsibility to those who supported the organization's position or opposed the mayor's controversial nominee. That provides perhaps the clearest example of why understanding the terminology matters.
Libel is not a synonym for criticism, opposition or embarrassing information. And voting against a mayoral appointment does not somehow make an elected official an accomplice to another person's alleged defamation.
Defamation is a civil cause of action governed by specific legal standards. It is not a general label that converts disagreement with a public official—or disagreement with someone supporting that official—into unlawful conduct.
Criticizing Government Is Not a Crime
This becomes particularly important when the discussion concerns government. Illinois law expressly recognizes the importance of citizens, organizations and the press participating in governmental affairs.
Illinois' Citizen Participation Act recognizes that lawsuits can be misused to intimidate, harass or punish citizens, organizations and the press for participating in public affairs. The law establishes protections for certain claims arising from constitutionally protected speech, petitioning, association, participation in government and freedom of the press.
Illinois lawmakers substantially revised that law in 2025, with the changes applying to actions commenced on or after January 1, 2026. That does not mean someone can knowingly invent false facts about another person and automatically hide behind the First Amendment. It means something much more fundamental: participating in government, criticizing government and reporting on government are activities protected by constitutional law.
Public Officials Face Another Important Standard
When the person claiming defamation is a public official, constitutional law adds another major protection for speech. Under the rule originating with the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, a public official seeking damages over defamatory statements concerning official conduct generally must establish what the law calls actual malice.
“Actual malice” does not simply mean that someone was angry, hostile or disliked the official. It has a specific legal meaning. Generally, it means the challenged statement was published with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard for whether it was true or false. Illinois courts apply that constitutional principle in appropriate defamation cases involving public officials.
That distinction is important because political debate is often harsh. Citizens can be angry. Journalists can be critical. Residents can vehemently disagree with the people governing them. Hostility toward someone's politics is not, by itself, the legal definition of actual malice.
What About “Defamation Per Se”?
Illinois also recognizes certain statements as defamatory per se. These involve categories of statements traditionally considered so inherently harmful to reputation that a plaintiff does not have to establish special damages in the ordinary manner.
Illinois courts have recognized categories including certain false accusations of criminal conduct and statements that prejudice someone in their profession, employment or business. Illinois' Slander and Libel Act also addresses certain historically recognized categories of slander.
But even here, the underlying distinction between truth and falsity remains crucial. Defamation law does not exist to prevent truthful reporting. It exists to provide a civil remedy when legally actionable false statements damage another person's reputation.
“Someone Else Said It” Isn't Necessarily a Defense
There is another lesson particularly relevant in the age of Facebook: repeating somebody else's statement does not necessarily eliminate responsibility. Simply prefacing something with “I heard...” does not transform a potentially defamatory factual assertion into protected speech.
That should matter to anyone sharing the newest rumor circulating around Freeport. Before hitting “share,” repeating a rumor or presenting someone else's accusation as fact, there is a simple question worth asking: Do I actually know this is true?
That question is considerably more useful than shouting “libel” after someone says something you don't like.
You Also Don't Have Forever to Sue
Illinois imposes a relatively short deadline for bringing defamation actions. Under Illinois law, actions for slander or libel generally must be commenced within one year after the cause of action accrues.
That's another reminder that defamation is an actual area of civil law with statutes, precedent, defenses and deadlines. It isn't simply a rhetorical weapon.
Free Speech Doesn't Mean Freedom From Responsibility
None of this means the First Amendment gives anyone permission to knowingly manufacture false allegations about another person. It doesn't. Responsible journalism requires verification, and responsible citizens should distinguish facts from rumors.
Responsible public discourse also requires recognizing the difference between an accusation supported by evidence, an allegation clearly identified as an allegation, an opinion based upon disclosed facts and a fabricated statement presented as fact.
Those distinctions matter legally and journalistically. They also matter to the credibility of everyone participating in public debate.
Maybe We Should Understand the Word Before We Use It
There is nothing wrong with someone believing they have been defamed. Courthouses exist precisely so legitimate disputes can be evaluated under the law. But accusing someone of “libel” or “slander” does not establish that defamation occurred any more than accusing someone of theft establishes that something was stolen.
There are elements, defenses, constitutional protections and evidentiary burdens. And there are courts charged with deciding those questions.
So, as the words libel and slander continue bouncing around Freeport—from lawsuits to Facebook comments to the microphone at City Hall—perhaps the community would benefit from something considerably less dramatic: understanding what the words actually mean.
Criticism isn't automatically libel. Disagreement isn't automatically slander. Opposing a government appointment isn't defamation. And neither the loudest person in the council chambers nor the loudest person on Facebook gets to rewrite Illinois law simply by saying otherwise.
Investigative Reporting, Editing & Publication
Joshua T. Atkinson
Chairman | Fighting4Freeport