Yes Means Yes!

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Gov. Jerry Brown announced Sunday that he has signed a bill that makes California the first in the nation to define when "yes means yes" and adopt requirements for colleges to follow when investigating sexual assault reports.

State lawmakers last month approved Senate Bill 967 by Sen. Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, as states and universities across the U.S. 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 Sept. 16 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 7000 in Solidarity. "It's going to educate an entire new generation of students on what consent is and what consent is not ... that the absence of a no is not a yes."

The bill requires training for faculty reviewing complaints so that victims are not asked inappropriate questions when filing complaints. The bill also requires access to counseling, health care services and other resources.

When lawmakers were considering the bill, critics said it was overreaching and sends universities into murky legal waters. Some Republicans in the Assembly questioned whether statewide legislation is an appropriate venue to define sexual consent between two people.

There was no opposition from Republicans in the state Senate.

Gordon Finley, an adviser to the National Coalition for Men, wrote an editorial asking Brown not to sign the bill. He argued that "this campus rape crusade bill" presumes the guilt of the accused.

SB 967 applies to all California postsecondary schools, public and private, that receive state money for student financial aid. The California State University and University of California systems are backing the legislation after adopting similar consent standards this year.

UC President Janet Napolitano recently announced that the system will voluntarily establish an independent advocate to support sexual assault victims on every campus. An advocacy office also is a provision of the federal Survivor Outreach and Support Campus Act proposed by U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer and Rep. Susan Davis of San Diego, both Democrats.

No reason to go to bars in California anymore! Over all though I agree with most of the bill.

Too many characters.

Best OP ever!

I knew this was coming. This honestly a good thing. It will hopefully clarify things for both parties.

So if both parties are drunk, there was no consent!

(4) A policy that, in the evaluation of complaints in the disciplinary process, it shall not be a valid excuse that the accused believed that the complainant affirmatively consented to the sexual activity if the accused knew or reasonably should have known that the complainant was unable to consent to the sexual activity under any of the following circumstances:
(A) The complainant was asleep or unconscious.
(B) The complainant was incapacitated due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication, so that the complainant could not understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity.
(C) The complainant was unable to communicate due to a mental or physical condition.

Maybe, but I think this opens up a slew of rape lawsuits looking for a quick payday....

If you're merely drunk, then the law doesn't apply. The bill is pretty specific.

If you're merely drunk, then the law doesn't apply. The bill is pretty specific.

Well for college students there's not really much you have to get a quick payday from... it's like trying to get water from a stone... it just isn't there added with the debt most kids get saddled with from said schooling... They're adults at this point so not sure as to legal remedies that you could use against family... I'm not really familiar with civil filings on rape charges either though...

I suppose they could go after the schools dependent on the situation...

The more concerning thing for the individual would be the criminal charges and that sex offender tag that would follow them around.

This law seems to be nondiscriminatory though as well so a man would be able to use it against a woman too.

Hopefuly it opens up a better dialogue for people at a younger age so they take the act more seriously and the lasting rammifications it can have...

Passed out or nearly passed out = no
Seems pretty clear.

Except no, it doesn't say that at all.

(B) The complainant was incapacitated due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication, so that the complainant could not understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity.

I don't feel like reading all of this crap, what if both parties are smashed?

Except no, it doesn't say that at all.

The legislation also says that silence or a lack of resistance do not constitute consent. Under the bill, someone who is drunk, drugged, unconscious or asleep cannot grant consent.

I don't need your money so send it to charity.

If both parties are smashed tie goes to the vagina haver as always

It amazes me that you trust any person enough to *** em if they're all out for a mans wallet anyways lol...

It was merely an inquiry into the law, and well we see about where it stands. If one person can be guilty in that case due to failure to have the capacity to give consent then both parties should be guilty.

Well, it's not just the guys. Some ladies have turned their litigious sights on deeper pockets like universities and fraternal organizations, nationally, and local by chapter.

Unless you want to elaborate more in what the bill means about "incapacitated," using only the bill as a reference and cannot use outside sources to define the word.