The Argument Against Affirmative Consent Laws Gets Voxjacked

Two days ago, Ezra Klein, the editor of Vox.com,
penned what may be
the most repulsive article yet on the subject of affirmative
consent laws. Klein’s argument in a nutshell: yes, these laws are
overbroad and will probably result in innocent men being expelled
from college over ambiguous charges. Which is good, because the
college rape crisis is so terrible and the need to change the norms
of sexual behavior is so urgent that this requires a brutal and
ugly response. Or, as Joe Stalin was fond of saying, “When you chop
wood, chips must fly.” That’s the Russian equivalent of “You can’t
make an omelette without breaking eggs.”

Toward the end, Klein writes:

Then there’s the true nightmare scenario: completely false
accusations of rape by someone who did offer consent, but now wants
to take it back. I don’t want to say these kinds of false
accusations never happen, because they
do happen, and they’re awful. But they happen very, very
rarely.

I only just found out, from this
column by James Taranto, that the link in this passage goes to
my recent piece on Slate XX.

The whole point of which was to rebut the idea that false
accusations of rape are so infinitesimally rare that they needn’t
be a serious factor in deciding whether laws dealing with sexual
assault are unfair to the accused.

I repeat.

I wrote a piece (extensively fact-checked, I might add) arguing
that wrongful accusations of rape (either deliberately false or
based on alcohol-impaired memory and mixed signals) are not quite
as rare as anti-rape activists claim, and that we need to stop
using their alleged rarity to justify undermining the presumption
of innocence in sexual assault cases.

And Ezra Klein cites this very piece in an article that
justifies, pretty much, throwing the presumption of innocence out
the window.

Is there a word for having one’s writing hijacked to support (in
an egregiously misleading way) the very point you are arguing
against?

I suggest “voxjacking.”