Posted on 09/29/2014 2:24:55 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
The governor of California, Jerry Brown, has signed a bill that makes the state the first in the United States to define when “yes means yes” and adopt requirements for colleges to follow when investigating sexual assault reports.
State lawmakers last month approved a bill by Senator Kevin de Leon, a Los Angeles Democrat, as states and universities across the US are under pressure to change how they handle rape allegations. Campus sexual assault victims and women’s advocacy groups delivered petitions to Brown’s office on 16 Sept urging him to sign the bill.
De Leon has said the legislation will begin a paradigm shift in how college campuses in California prevent and investigate sexual assaults. Rather than using the refrain “no means no,” the definition of consent under the bill requires “an affirmative, conscious and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity.”
“Every student deserves a learning environment that is safe and healthy,” De Leon said in a statement Sunday night. “The state of California will not allow schools to sweep rape cases under the rug. We’ve shifted the conversation regarding sexual assault to one of prevention, justice, and healing.”
The legislation says silence or lack of resistance does not constitute consent. Under the bill, someone who is drunk, drugged, unconscious or asleep cannot grant consent.
Lawmakers say consent can be nonverbal, and universities with similar policies have outlined examples as a nod of the head or moving in closer to the person.
Advocates for victims of sexual assault supported the change as one that will provide consistency across campuses and challenge the notion that victims must have resisted assault to have valid complaints.
“This is amazing,” said Savannah Badalich, a student at UCLA, where classes begin this week, and the founder of the group 7,000 in Solidarity.
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
Liberals are very confused. Instead of just going with what worked for so long...don't have sex before marriage....they have to legislate that it's criminal to have sex before marriage unless you practically have a lawyer and a recording of "consent" with the screwing couple in the room.
It should be No means No.
candy’s dandy
but......
liquor’s quicker
RE: It should be No means No.
Been there, done that.
Does it apply to Bill Clinton and the Kennedys?
Don’t see how this bill accomplishes anything.
We are saying that consent can be given by a nod of the head or moving closer physically to the person. Doesn’t this just set up more he said/she said situations? He will say she moved closer to him so he interprets as consent. She will say she was trying to get off the bed. He will say she nodded her head. She will say she didn’t nod her head to affirm consent.
back when I was in college, you didn’t have to roll with legal counsel when you wanted a good time.. The bars and keggers will be too crowded with all the suits.
If you’re young and male, stay out of these post-secondary slander institutions.
Liberals are very confused. Instead of just going with what worked for so long...don’t have sex before marriage....they have to legislate that it’s criminal to have sex before marriage unless you practically have a lawyer and a recording of “consent” with the screwing couple in the room.
I was just thinking that here is a great business opportunity for the Glut of lawyers being produced by the nation’s ‘law schools’.
Kiosks or maybe even van type ‘consent form and witness services’. An enterprising new lawyer could make a lot of money at $20 a form for video witnessing and then providing post-date services to the highest payer.
Every FEMALE student deserves a learning environment that is safe and healthy...
Men, if you have sex on these campuses, you're risking your academic and economic life to do it.
I guess the guys will all have to carry their own breathalyzer around so they can be sure they get a legit “yes” from a woman and not an alcohol-induced yes!
It depends on what the meaning of yes is
Under the bill, someone who is drunk, drugged, unconscious or asleep cannot grant consent.
So If I get all drugged up and Drunk, I can now go out and Commit a Crime and be absolved from all Responsibility, because I was Drugged or Drunk and UNABLE TO KNOW BETTER.
The best part is a few years from now when they realized what they have done. It will be the conservatives that did it of course.
Exactly. It means “yes”, until it means “no”.
Does this mean that if the guy is drunk, then he can’t consent and the gal is the rapist? Didn’t think so...
I want to know if this is going to be applied to sodomite “relationships”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.