Robert Carle on How Affirmative Consent Threatens Liberty

|

Consent 2014 / Vimeo

On January 20, most college students in New York and California started their spring semesters under a new regime of sexual policing called affirmative consent ("yes means yes"). Under these policies, any student who cannot prove that he obtained ongoing, unambiguous consent to any sexual activity will automatically be guilty of violating campus sexual assault policies. But as Robert Carle explains, affirmative consent laws turn normal human interactions into sexual offenses. They establish a presumption of guilt and strip the accused of due process protections. And they are also being used by campus activists to selectively prosecute students with unpopular viewpoints on controversial issues.

NEXT: Ronald Bailey: Abolish the Intelligence-Industrial Complex

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Care to give us an article, or is it being held hostage as part of a new year fundraising effort?

    1. Like anyone actually reads the articles, anyway.

  2. Short article? Or is this the teaser page and you forgot the link?

    1. I like that there is a link to request a reprint. The reprint request form is probably longer than the 4 sentences above.

  3. You know who else stripped the accused of due process protections…

    1. Any Supreme Court Justice?

  4. Men must prove a woman said ‘Yes’ under tough new rape rules

    The UK takes it even further.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new…..rules.html

    1. From that article:

      The rape conference was designed partly to address the long-standing gulf between rape allegations and convictions, as well as a variation between different forces in the way they deal with rape allegations.

      So, in other words, as long as not all rape allegations result in convictions, we have a problem and we must address this problem until an allegation always leads to a conviction. But then these rules basically eliminate “He said, she said” in favor of “She said. (He doesn’t get a say.)”

  5. And they are also being used by campus activists to selectively prosecute students with unpopular viewpoints on controversial issues.

    Imposserous!

  6. any student who cannot prove that he obtained ongoing, unambiguous consent to any sexual activity will automatically be guilty of violating campus sexual assault policies.

    How can anyone prove that they had “ongoing, unambiguous consent” to sex? Even if you have a written Love Contract in which each party explicitly agrees to each sexual act, a party could simply claim that they rescinded their consent after they signed the contract. Near as I can tell, the only way you could prove continuous consent under this standard is to have a video recording of the entire proceeding, with each party calling out “I am currently consenting” every minute or so.

    So basically if one person decides to make rape allegations after having sex, there will be no way for the other person to defend himself effectively.

  7. How can anyone prove that they had “ongoing, unambiguous consent” to sex?

    Observers.

  8. So basically if one person the woman decides to make rape allegations after having sex, there will be no way for the other person man to defend himself effectively.

    This shit only flows in one direction.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.