Make a law that forbids all media from reporting people's names until a guilty verdict is handed down, simple as that. If that were the case, none of us would ever have even known this guys name, let alone his consensual sex in which he was accused of rape which will now follow him around forever. Even though he is innocent and has video proof showing she was willing and the instigator, he will always have that stigma of "Hey, wasn't this guy investigated for rape?"
I do believe there is a law in place already to punish people like this, that being the filing a false police report, which can vary between a misdemeanor and a felony. Also, he can most likely go after her in civil court for defamation of character.
The only part above I disagree with you with is the "Not guilty" part. You can rape someone, but they can wait too long to the point there isn't enough physical evidence to convict you. You're still guilty, but not guilty in the court of law. People like that shouldn't be punished for a not guilty verdict. False accusations, yes, throw the book at people that do that, they deserve extremely harsh punishments.
Some aren't arguing that specifically, but the presence of alcohol in cases like this makes consent difficult to determine and some people have difficulty holding a person with ANY alcohol in their system accountable for their actions and claim that because they had ANY alcohol means they can't consent, period.
"Rape is more common than false accusation of rape."
"Also, I find the notion of anybody's life being ruined over a "false accusation" hilarious.
"We have actual, proven rapists winning Oscars."
"Hoooowever, given how far more likely it is that he did indeed rape her means that it si prudent for other students to socially shun him and warn all women of the danger that he poses."
"It is a he said, she said situation. And given rape being far more common it is prudent to believe her instead of him and act accordingly. Why should I believe him?"
"Legally he is not guilty. Does not mean there shouldn't be social consequences."
"I'm not the justice system. I have no legal obligation to think him innocent."
"Not really. Again, rape more likely. So believing women is prudent."
Once again, that is literally what you are trying to argue. Therefore, if anyone accuses you of rape, by your logic, there should be social consequences for you.
At this point, you are arguing against your own words.
- - - Updated - - -
My best argument is your own words, they have been provided.
Exactly the reason to pout this before a jury and not to have judge do an end run around the proper legal process.
Others have noted that the video is only evidence of what happened at that time, not what happened before and not what happened after.
Anyone can give the nod to go ahead, and then just before you go "balls deep" say "Oh wait, I changed my mind." That's legally how it works. You can be "prick teased" or whatever, and then you have to eat it raw.
People have the right to say "no" at any time.
The judge is basically saying that this victim doesn't have that right because the video disqualifies everything else. Which is absurd.
In a sane world there would be repercussions for false accusations, if said accusations were found by the court to be made for the purposes of maliciousness or profit.
However, it will be a very long time before this ever happens, if at all. Because no politician is going to push for stricter law enforcement concerning false accusations, because certain misguided people would publicly skip the already-irrational claim that said politician is "going easy on rapists," and go straight to calling said politician a literal rapist.
And the moral of the story is, this is an insane world made so by some insane people.