The EU

Google says the EU requires a notice of cookie use (by Google) and says they have posted a notice. I don't see it. If cookies bother you, go elsewhere. If the EU bothers you, emigrate. If you live outside the EU, don't go there.

Monday, June 29, 2015

Revising Laws For Sex Crimes


For John, BLUFThe Democrats worry about Republicans peering into the bedroom and then work to criminalize normal conduct.  Prosecute rape, not regret.  Nothing to see here; just move along.



I wonder about the title of this article by Ashe Schow in The Washington Examiner, "Has the federal government ever had sex?".  Here is the lede.
The act of sex is not illegal.  But if two members of the American Law Institute have their way, it will be — unless you follow their rules.

Law professors Stephen J. Schulhofer and Erin Murphy are trying to update the criminal code when it comes to sex offenses, believing current definitions of rape and sexual assault are antiquated.  The focus of their draft is on what constitutes consent.  It adopts the "yes means yes," or "affirmative consent" model that was passed in California last year.

The California law applies only to college campuses, however.  Schulhofer and Murphy aim to take that definition of consent — which says that before every escalation of a sexual encounter, clear and convincing consent must be given — to the state or federal level.  No one actually has sex this way, requesting permission and having it granted perhaps a dozen times in a single encounter.

But the theory that millions of Americans are having sex wrongly has gained currency among campus activists.  This new attempt to alter the American Law Institute's Model Penal Code, a highly influential document that has been adopted in whole or in part by many states' legislatures, is part of a push to bring authoritarianism into the bedroom.

Blogger Glenn Harlan Reynolds is on vacation, so we were missing the line "They said if I voted for Romney the Government would move into our bedrooms, and they were right".

If passed, this won't have a good outcome.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

1 comment:

lance said...

Not sure how you reach the conclusion you do. And by the way the first line of the article is not correct either.

Having the Government involved has helped to make sex between a white person and a black legal, protects minors in many cases, allows two people of the same sex to have sex, tries to protect against rape (including by a spouse), etc. All of which should be considered good. Certainly more progressive than what we have seen in combating domestic terrorism, hate crimes, mass killings, etc.