By now, most of you have heard about the case of Rachel Dolezal.
A young African-American woman, Dolezel had been accused of stealing the civil rights movement’s first official endorsement by being a white woman, in order to make herself look like an authentic, fully-fledged member of the civil-rights movement.
Dolezals misdirection and misrepresentation was, in essence, the “implied-consent” law.
According to the law, if you are caught misrepresenting or falsely representing yourself, you can be fined up to $250,000 and imprisoned up to two years.
It sounds harsh, but it was, at the time, the most serious civil-right law in the nation.
Dolees story and subsequent legal challenges were followed by a series of other lawsuits alleging civil rights violations.
The backlash, as it turns out, was swift.
Doles case, as well as other recent cases involving racial misbehavior in the media and the internet, have prompted many people to take up the issue of consent, or how we should use the legal system to protect vulnerable people from harmful situations.
Many people argue that the use of consent is more complicated than it seems, and that consent is really only one of many possible ways to have a consensual encounter.
In this article, I will explore the role of consent in the legal world, and what consent actually is, and how it is sometimes misused in the real world.
Before we begin, let me clarify that I do not have any personal knowledge of Dolezall’s case or her story.
My understanding of it is that it is an incredibly well-written, thought-provoking piece of fiction, but I don’t know if the book is factual.
It may well be that it was based on real events, and I am only able to find the book through the work of a friend.
However, the point I want to make is that the laws we use in the US are complicated.
In my opinion, the question of consent does not involve “if you want to be raped, or if you want someone to have sex with you.”
Consent can be given without even knowing what the other person wants, or the other party is asking for it.
And if you ask, “do you want me to give you oral sex?” in a relationship, the answer is yes.
The real problem with consent laws is that they are frequently used to harass people who are not involved in the conversation, to punish those who do not “cooperate” or “listen,” and to punish people who fail to comply with orders or orders they do not understand.
What are the real problems with consent?
First, the real problem is not consent itself, or even the act of consent.
The real problem lies in the way the laws are written and how they are used.
This is a key point.
Consent laws have become increasingly problematic in recent years because of the rise of the internet.
People are using the internet to interact more openly, to communicate and to make decisions.
This is not only an increased risk for people, but also for the legal systems.
But the real issue is not the actual act of “cooperation” or the lack of it, but rather the way that consent laws are used to silence, and punish, people who do “not cooperate.”
Asking “does anyone want to do this?” can be a legitimate question, but that does not mean that people should answer it as if they did not already know the answer.
If someone is asking you to do something, and you do not agree with what they say, then you have no choice but to say “no.”
And, if that is not enough, then “you are violating my civil rights by refusing to comply.”
In other words, the problem is that consent, and the idea that consent applies to all interactions, is being abused to silence people who “do not cooperate.”
Consent laws and social norms have become so pervasive and so damaging that many people are scared to even speak up about the issue, let alone say that they do.
Why does this matter?
The legal system and the legal profession have a vested interest in maintaining a safe, legal environment in which people can express themselves.
But the criminal justice system is no less concerned with preserving a safe environment, and is often willing to make some people guilty until they are proven innocent.
Legal professionals are concerned that if they can be convicted of misconduct in the courts, they will be able to make a career out of making people who were wrongfully accused guilty.
I think this is very dangerous.
If we are to have any hope of protecting vulnerable people in the world, then we need to have rules that help ensure that everyone is safe from harassment, discrimination, and exploitation.
As a result, the legal community has been pushing for laws to protect