(war on men) 'Affirmed consent’ bill signed by Brown

[aGameOfThrones]

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill Sunday that requires colleges and universities in the state to adopt anti-sexual-assault policies that radically rewrite what constitutes consent, a move that some critics have called an unfair shift of the burden of proof to the accused.

Under the new law, the standard for consent to sexual activity in campus judicial hearings shifts from whether or not a person said “no” to whether both partners said “yes.” Many universities already use what is known as the “affirmed consent” standard when investigating sexual assault allegations, but the new law would require all campuses in the state to use the standard as a condition of receiving state funds for student financial aid. The law does not affect criminal proceedings in California, but only applies to campus disciplinary hearings.

SB967 comes during heightened concerns across the country over whether higher education institutions have failed to conduct adequate investigations into sexual assaults. The bill’s author, state Sen. Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles, said the legislation ensures the system is not stacked against those who report an attack.

“These are our daughters, they are our sisters, they are our nieces,” de León said in a statement Sunday. “Students shouldn't have to live in fear while pursing their dreams of higher education.”

Affirmed consent is defined as an “affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity” with the consent ongoing throughout.

SB967 states “lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence.” The bill also says that a person cannot give consent if they are intoxicated or unconscious.

Title IX complaint

“A lot of the time when you have these cases, the survivor was too incapacitated or drugged, and the assailant just says she never said 'no,’” said Sofie Karasek, a UC Berkeley student who said her school mishandled a sexual assault complaint she filed against a fellow student.

Karasek and 30 students and alumni filed a Title IX complaint in February against UC Berkeley for “systematically mishandling sexual assault cases.”

The federal Clery Act and Title IX specify how colleges and universities are required to respond and disclose sexual assault crimes. But many students came forward across the country to say their claims were not properly investigated or the punishment was insufficient to nonexistent.

The bill also requires school officials who investigate sexual assault allegations to undergo “comprehensive, trauma-informed trainings” and that students who report a rape are offered counseling and mental and health care services.

“I think this is an important move in encouraging women’s rights,” said Kendall Anderson, 20, a Mills College student.

In a country where tradition holds that the accused is presumed innocent and the state bears the burden of proving guilt, critics say SB967 unfairly moves that onus to the accused on college campuses.

“This is a total denial of due process,” Professor Gordon Finley of Florida International University said after learning the bill was signed into law. “No California son should go to any California university because even in the most baseless allegation the man will be convicted. It’s a foregone conclusion under SB967.”


http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Affirmed-consent-bill-signed-by-Brown-5787198.php

[Philhelm]

Ridiculous. Most women will clam up when a man asks if it is okay to have sex with her, unless the woman is looking for Beta Bux.

[fr33]

From now on, film it.

"YES! YES! YES! OHHH YESSSS!"

[specsaregood]

“A lot of the time when you have these cases, the survivor was too incapacitated or drugged, and the assailant just says she never said 'no,’” said Sofie Karasek, a UC Berkeley student who said her school mishandled a sexual assault complaint she filed against a fellow student.

And now the assailant will just say she said "yes". this wont change shit.

[aGameOfThrones]

From now on, film it.

"YES! YES! YES! OHHH YESSSS!"



But if the guy films it and then shows the video as proof of consent, he will probably get charges under the Revenge Porn laws just cus.

[Anti Federalist]

In a country where tradition holds that the accused is presumed innocent and the state bears the burden of proving guilt, critics say SB967 unfairly moves that onus to the accused on college campuses.

That "tradition" has long since died out, here in the land of the free.

This is just one more nail in the coffin.

[Origanalist]

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill Sunday that requires colleges and universities in the state to adopt anti-sexual-assault policies that radically rewrite what constitutes consent,

Was there ever any doubt?

[alucard13mm]

If a woman lies about a man raping her... does anything happen to the woman? When you accuse a man of rape, it destroys the man's life, even if the man is found not guilty or the woman was lying.

It seems progressives/democrats/big government republicans, dont think through a lot of things.

[dannno]

And now the assailant will just say she said "yes". this wont change shit.

Ya but does he have proof she said yes?

Not sure how it will end up playing out.

[TheTexan]

But if the guy films it and then shows the video as proof of consent, he will probably get charges under the Revenge Porn laws just cus.

And wiretapping

[Brian4Liberty]

Sometimes you need to have a Hollywood celebrity sneer at you and scold you, just because...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j70ha1PUlqk

[fr33]

Sometimes you need to have a Hollywood celebrity sneer at you and scold you, just because...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j70ha1PUlqk

I am sick and fucking tired of being scolded for something I did not do. I hate those actors just as much as I hate domestic abusers. How can they say this is accomplishing anything? All it does is elicit a "fuck you" from the viewers.

[TheTexan]

Sometimes you need to have a Hollywood celebrity sneer at you and scold you, just because...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j70ha1PUlqk

Fuck ya, no more!

http://replygif.net/i/775.gif

I was kinda disappointed Ceelo Green wasn't in that video, he's one of my favorites.

[FindLiberty]

Maybe the us army can install an O-chip to eliminate the need for... er, ah, to prevent this from ever happening again!

Military Funds Brain-Computer Interfaces to Control Feelings:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?460639-Mentally-Ill-Military-Funds-Brain-Computer-Interfaces-to-Control-Feelings (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?460639-Mentally-Ill-Military-Funds-Brain-Computer-Interfaces-to-Control-Feelings)

http://technabob.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/simon-belt-buckle.jpg

[otherone]

Ya but does he have proof she said yes?

Not sure how it will end up playing out.

What about when her lips say 'no' but her eyes say 'yes'?

[Feeding the Abscess]

Progressivism - where consent is king. Except when it isn't. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government)

[idiom]

And now the assailant will just say she said "yes". this wont change shit.

Exactly.


Ridiculous. Most women will clam up when a man asks if it is okay to have sex with her, unless the woman is looking for Beta Bux.

Dude you don't ask, you make them ask. Then you hmm and haw a bit, then you give affirmed consent :P

[CaptUSA]

Listen, in this day and age where every one has a cell phone capable of capturing decent video, there is no reason not to videotape you every sexual encounter.

You have nothing to hide, right?

Then, our dreams of getting paid to watch college kids having sex will come to fruition for the lucky few who get that job. Perhaps I can become an expert in the field??? "Yes, your honor. From my expert and detailed analysis of the encounter, I can testify that the victim consented up until 14:28 in the video. That was the point where she got some in her eye. I had to watch it frame by frame 20 or 30 times, but you can clearly see her mouth the word "no". I believe this assailant should get the maximum sentence unless he can provide a better angle for us to review."

[osan]

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Affirmed-consent-bill-signed-by-Brown-5787198.php

Nothing surprising there. The progression of political tyranny via channels of the surreal-stoopid are sufficiently predictable such that we could generate a list of future trespasses with surprisingly little effort.


From now on, film it.

"YES! YES! YES! OHHH YESSSS!"

And see him go up-river under a pornography charge. In this sordid little victory of the progressive, men have no hope of prevailing. Theye will get you this way, or that. Mr. Hook, meet Mr. Crook.


And now the assailant will just say she said "yes". this wont change shit.

I doubt strongly doubt this will prove the case. I see but two possibilities here: straight men at CA universities are either going to be in profound danger during their student tenures, plus that seven years for the statute of limitations to run out, or the courts will strike this down as the malarky-flavored and potentially mortally dangerous idiocy that it is. Remember the sort of fate that rapists tend to face in prison.

I pity the first poor son of a bitch who is sent up on this one.


But if the guy films it and then shows the video as proof of consent, he will probably get charges under the Revenge Porn laws just cus.

See? I'm not the only rocket surgeon with 20/20 on this one. :)


That "tradition" has long since died out, here in the land of the free.

This is just one more nail in the coffin.

Yip. Just another step toward that progressive paradise of which we keep hearing speak.


What about when her lips say 'no' but her eyes say 'yes'?

Short of getting it in writing, you're screwed to the barn door. Just make sure you take plenty of vaseline to prison with you. Your sphincter will thank you.

Finally, note how there was no mention of penalties for a woman who falsely charges a man with "sexual assault". Makes me go "hmmmmm..."

[specsaregood]

I doubt strongly doubt this will prove the case. I see but two possibilities here: straight men at CA universities are either going to be in profound danger during their student tenures, plus that seven years for the statute of limitations to run out, or the courts will strike this down as the malarky-flavored and potentially mortally dangerous idiocy that it is. Remember the sort of fate that rapists tend to face in prison.

I pity the first poor son of a bitch who is sent up on this one.


The slippery slope argument and future legislation aside, it says right in paragraph 2 that this only affects campus disciplinary hearings, not criminal proceedings.


Under the new law, the standard for consent to sexual activity in campus judicial hearings shifts from whether or not a person said “no” to whether both partners said “yes.” Many universities already use what is known as the “affirmed consent” standard when investigating sexual assault allegations, but the new law would require all campuses in the state to use the standard as a condition of receiving state funds for student financial aid. The law does not affect criminal proceedings in California, but only applies to campus disciplinary hearings.

[asurfaholic]

If a woman lies about a man raping her... does anything happen to the woman? When you accuse a man of rape, it destroys the man's life, even if the man is found not guilty or the woman was lying.

It seems progressives/democrats/big government republicans, dont think through a lot of things.

Nothing happens. I was the subject of a somewhat similar situation in which a neighbor who had befriended my wife, subsequently having a falling out, decided to wreck havoc in our lives. She apparently filmed me through a window getting into the shower then came banged on the door. I threw on some shorts and ran answered the door to find a camera aimed at my lower body. Then she went on a tirade about how I was getting naked with the blinds open and she was going to tell my wife blah blah. I said do it, I can be naked in my house, slammed the door. I then called the police and told them what happened. They came and pretty much said its not illegal for someone to film through an open window and to her they said its not illegal to be naked in your house. So then the story changed, she went to a magistrate and pressed charges on me accusing me of on 2 occasions stripping on my front porch in front of her children swinging my junk. Anyways, I was able to prover her lies in court, the only thing that happened was my charges got dropped. But no trouble for her, and my background check still reflects 2 counts of indecent exposure.

[CaptUSA]

Nothing happens. I was the subject of a somewhat similar situation in which a neighbor who had befriended my wife, subsequently having a falling out, decided to wreck havoc in our lives. She apparently filmed me through a window getting into the shower then came banged on the door. I threw on some shorts and ran answered the door to find a camera aimed at my lower body. Then she went on a tirade about how I was getting naked with the blinds open and she was going to tell my wife blah blah. I said do it, I can be naked in my house, slammed the door. I then called the police and told them what happened. They came and pretty much said its not illegal for someone to film through an open window and to her they said its not illegal to be naked in your house. So then the story changed, she went to a magistrate and pressed charges on me accusing me of on 2 occasions stripping on my front porch in front of her children swinging my junk. Anyways, I was able to prover her lies in court, the only thing that happened was my charges got dropped. But no trouble for her, and my background check still reflects 2 counts of indecent exposure.

So did you learn your lesson?

[osan]

The slippery slope argument and future legislation aside, it says right in paragraph 2 that this only affects campus disciplinary hearings, not criminal proceedings.

Uh huh. And how far behind does one think is the leap from the one to the other? It may not go there, but then again...

But as you wrote, putting all that aside, what other hazards are there? How about the record of the disciplinary action? Would you assert there will be no record? I would say you would be wrong. Given the existence and given it is public record - at least in the public universities - the student so "convicted" stands under Damocles' sword for... how long would that be? Those public record gathering firms will snap that up, retain it forever, and little Johnny Innocent will have it follow him around like a little black cloud pretty much for the remainder of his life. Or are there specifically enumerated protections in the new law? If so, are they sufficient? Are they enforceable? WILL they be enforced and how will the rights of the accused be protected?

That's just the tip of the iceberg of hazards that face those falling victim to this.

How about this: what is the likely outcome of a "guilty" verdict in a mere disciplinary hearing? Dismissal. What other choice does a university now have, if from no other point of consideration than that of sheer liability? Is any college going to do less than dismiss the student? No bloody way. If they do not and that student is again accused, the school will be wide open to suits and litigation because it will be asserted that they failed to take the appropriate measures to protect the female students by allowing a rapist to remain enrolled.

And as to the separation of disciplinary hearings and criminal cases: bullshit. Example: Johnny Innocent is accused of sexual assault by another (presumably female) student. That is the accusation of a felony, which is serious business. The school "handles" it. They "convict". Do you for a moment believe that the local cops will not get wind of it; that the university will hold the information in the strictest confidence? Do you for even the briefest moment believe that the plaintiff will not subsequently run to the police to file criminal charges, the record of the disciplinary hearing waving wildly in her hand? Do you believe in the least measure that she will not paint herself on her lawyer like white on rice, seeking compensation in the courts of equity, employing that same paper to bolster her claims?

Come on there, d00d-0... you know better than that. Much better.

And what about his edumacation? Imagine, if you will, Johnny Innocent completes 3.9 years of medical school... some $200K+++ worth. In anticipation of graduation he attends a party, gets lucky, and is then accused. The university, based on the standard as has been here described, pretty well has no choice but to convict. He is immediately dismissed and he gets no diploma. Johnny remains on the hook for the monies owed, sustains the gross losses of tuition already spent, and is left with his dick in the dirt.

I am just scratching the surface here. The chain of possibility is long and very unpleasant. This bill is anathema to all that is right, proper, and good.

[specsaregood]

I am just scratching the surface here. The chain of possibility is long and very unpleasant. This bill is anathema to all that is right, proper, and good.

I'm with you on that. What I meant by: "... this wont change shit." is that this won't actually prevent a single damn rape. it is still his word vs. her word. He just has to say a different word now. And when it fails to change anything, they'll follow that slippery slope into arguing that we need the same law to carry over into criminal proceedings.

[Acala]

I had a brief stint teaching employment law at University of Phoenix. When we came to the section on sexual harassment I would take a poll: "How many women have at some time in the past told a man "no" and then later been intimate with him consensually?" This was done in open class with a show of hands and typically half of the women would admit to this. I would then follow this up with: "So, does no mean no? Discuss." This would always lead to a near fist fight. And several students complained about me to the administration. Hehehehe. Sometimes the truth hurts.

[Christian Liberty]

I had a brief stint teaching employment law at University of Phoenix. When we came to the section on sexual harassment I would take a poll: "How many women have at some time in the past told a man "no" and then later been intimate with him consensually?" This was done in open class with a show of hands and typically half of the women would admit to this. I would then follow this up with: "So, does no mean no? Discuss." This would always lead to a near fist fight. And several students complained about me to the administration. Hehehehe. Sometimes the truth hurts.

lol!

[Slave Mentality]

Good luck getting wasted college kids to provide an accurate accounting of events.

"We smoked some weed, did some X, finished off a liter of Rum, and I specifically remember telling him to take his finger out"

I know that I am a cave man.

[asurfaholic]

So did you learn your lesson?

Not sure what your point is exactly. When I called the police that night it established a official report that differed from the account that was later brought to a magistrate. 2 local cops who believed me proved valuable witness in my favor in something that would have otherwise been a my word vs hers type deal.

So, I ask... What is your point?

[osan]

I'm with you on that. What I meant by: "... this won't change shit." is that this won't actually prevent a single damn rape.

Illuminatus! I took your statement in the incorrect context. Pardon me, if you would.


it is still his word vs. her word. He just has to say a different word now. And when it fails to change anything, they'll follow that slippery slope into arguing that we need the same law to carry over into criminal proceedings.

His word v. hers, and yet I strongly suspect that the burden has been shifted yet again in the wrong direction.

[osan]

I had a brief stint teaching employment law at University of Phoenix. When we came to the section on sexual harassment I would take a poll: "How many women have at some time in the past told a man "no" and then later been intimate with him consensually?" This was done in open class with a show of hands and typically half of the women would admit to this. I would then follow this up with: "So, does no mean no? Discuss." This would always lead to a near fist fight. And several students complained about me to the administration. Hehehehe. Sometimes the truth hurts.


This is eminently rep-worthy.

Pony up, boys. Pony up.

[dannno]

What about when her lips say 'no' but her eyes say 'yes'?

Keep priming.